RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (5/31/2008 9:05:31 PM)

quote:

What is a non-screwball understanding of "literalist"?
Did you not read Article XV of the Chicago Statement?



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (5/31/2008 10:10:50 PM)

ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:

What is a non-screwball understanding of "literalist"?

“Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:
· Poetry—as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason why the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.
· Parables—as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable and about which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.
· Prophecy—as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).
· Letters—as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.
· Biography—as in the gospels.
· Autobiography/testimony—as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1–19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1–21; 26:1–22).
· Authentic historical facts—as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.
Thus the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content.” - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (5/31/2008 11:08:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:

What is a non-screwball understanding of "literalist"?

“Creationists are often accused of believing that the whole Bible should be taken literally. This is not so! Rather, the key to a correct understanding of any part of the Bible is to ascertain the intention of the author of the portion or book under discussion. This is not as difficult as it may seem, as the Bible obviously contains:
· Poetry—as in the Psalms, where the repetition or parallelism of ideas is in accordance with Hebrew ideas of poetry, without the rhyme (parallelism of sound) and metre (parallelism of time) that are important parts of traditional English poetry. This, by the way, is the reason why the Psalms can be translated into other languages and still retain most of their literary appeal and poetic piquancy, while the elements of rhyme and metre are usually lost when traditional Western poetry is translated into other languages.
· Parables—as in many of the sayings of Jesus, such as the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–23), which Jesus Himself clearly states to be a parable and about which He gives meanings for the various items, such as the seed and the soil.
· Prophecy—as in the books of the last section of the Old Testament (Isaiah to Malachi).
· Letters—as in the New Testament epistles written by Paul, Peter, John, and others.
· Biography—as in the gospels.
· Autobiography/testimony—as in the book of Acts where the author, Luke, after narrating the Apostle Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a historical fact (Acts 9:1–19), then describes two further occasions when Paul included this conversion experience as part of his own personal testimony (Acts 22:1–21; 26:1–22).
· Authentic historical facts—as in the books of 1 and 2 Kings, etc.
Thus the author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content.” - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/genesis.asp


Which really tells us nothing at all about literalism as any and all of these genres may contain both passages intended to be understood literally and figures of speech and other literary motifs not to be understood literally. No author in any genre writes exclusively in literal vs non-literal modes.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (5/31/2008 11:42:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

What is a non-screwball understanding of "literalist"?
Did you not read Article XV of the Chicago Statement?



quote:

Article XV

WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text.

WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support.

The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed.

The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV).


In the first place, it is a rather unique interpretation of "literal". My understanding of "literal" is the physical and/or common sense meaning based on sensory perception.

By defining "literal" as "the meaning which the writer expressed" all sorts of non-literal (in the above sense) meanings become included in the "literal" sense. Similes, metaphors and personifications in particular, are now understood to be "literal" rather than figurative. So the creationist I spoke to some time ago who ended our conversation on this topic with the exclamation "Well, it's literally figurative" was not so far off the mark after all.

Of course, we are still left with the question of whether the author intended his references to the foundations of the earth to be understood as "literal" or "literally figurative".

The authors also seem to have an ambivalent attitude toward myth and allegory. On the one hand they seem to assume that such non-literal modes are not "supported by the literal text". Where they get this notion from, I don't quite know. Neither myth nor allegory can be understood except by reference to the literal text. They are not secret codes.

Clearly, given the NT penchant for interpreting the OT along allegorical lines, they can't exclude allegory, but they want it to be "designated". One wonders what the proper "literal" interpretation of Jesus' words of institution of the Lord's Supper is. There is no designation that "This bread is my body" is allegorical or intended to say anything other than it does.

So, I am rather befuddled by the whole description, since it seems self-contradictory. The principal aim seems to be to exclude myth as a genre of biblical literature, but other than the spurious notion that myth cannot be supported by the literal text, there does not seem to be a coherent reason for this exclusion. If a text can be "literally figurative" it can also be "literally mythological". In fact, one of the pre-eminent scholars of biblical literature, the late Northrope Frye, insisted that the only way to read the bible literally was to read it mythologically. C.S. Lewis also maintained that much of the bible is "true myth".

It ought to go without saying that any interpretation of the OT which "discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed" will understand it as myth since that was the cultural mode of literary expression in that historical time-frame.



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 9:16:32 AM)

quote:

In the first place, it is a rather unique interpretation of "literal".
Hardly unique sice >200 scholars and theologians signed off on it!

quote:

My understanding of "literal" is the physical and/or common sense meaning based on sensory perception.
Of course, the (mis)understandings of all naturalists are biased toward their sensory perceptions.

quote:

So, I am rather befuddled by the whole description, since it seems self-contradictory.
I'm quite sure it does to someone who already has their mind made up.

quote:

It ought to go without saying that any interpretation of the OT which "discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed" will understand it as myth since that was the cultural mode of literary expression in that historical time-frame.
Which is precisely why the Bible stands out as the ONLY historically factual account of origins. But again, your faulty assumptions preclude this simple conclusion.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 9:27:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

It ought to go without saying that any interpretation of the OT which "discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed" will understand it as myth since that was the cultural mode of literary expression in that historical time-frame.
Which is precisely why the Bible stands out as the ONLY historically factual account of origins. But again, your faulty assumptions preclude this simple conclusion.



Except that it doesn't stand out. Noting about it looks any more historically factual than the pagan myths it was competing with.

The big difference is the monotheism of the Hebrew scriptures. But it expresses that monotheism in the same mythological framework as the pagans did their polytheism.

I have no problem accepting the Hebrew mythology as true; I do believe God inspired the ancient Hebrew writers to produce it. But they produced what would be meaningful for their time, not according to modernist standards of facticity.

The truly interesting thing is that myth has a staying power that science does not. As creationists often complain, science is ever changing as we discover more about nature and devise newer models to explain it. Much the same applies to history--which, as they say, is written by the victors. So when the victors change, the history changes with it.

But myth can continue to give the same message over and over and over again to generation after generation after generation without needing to be remodeled every few decades. I wonder if that is why God chose story rather than history as the primary vehicle of revelation? It is both easier to remember and less liable to change over time. A very appropriate vehicle for a timeless message.



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 10:06:43 AM)

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

As creationists often complain, science is ever changing as we discover more about nature and devise newer models to explain it.

We don’t state that as a complaint, but rather as a cold hard fact in contrast to the fact that God never changes.
Which is a more reliable source for the true story of origins, a system of man-made interpretations that are subject to change at any time or the written witness of the unchanging and inerrant Creator God? Hint: If scientific interpretations are the definitive truth then why are they constantly changing?

quote:

Much the same applies to history--which, as they say, is written by the victors.

While that is true even of the Bible (God is victorious over evil), using it as an argument against the veracity of the Genesis account of origins is effectively calling God a liar.

quote:

So when the victors change, the history changes with it.

When God is no longer THE victor I will concede that your argument has virtue. Until then I will continue to insist that the Bible is our ultimate authority for doctrine.



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 10:12:39 AM)

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

Which really tells us nothing at all about literalism as any and all of these genres may contain both passages intended to be understood literally and figures of speech and other literary motifs not to be understood literally.

Try reading the entire article.



essentialsaltes -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 12:12:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Look es, does the Bible you're using show both 1 Chron 16:30 and Psalm 93:1 to be part of original text that is in poetic form. Mine certainly does


Well, that's part of the problem. Certainly the authors did not write "This next bit is poetic" in the original texts. That was added by later critics. So the question remains pretty much the same. How do we know that the geocentric references are all poetic, but Genesis is not, in at least some parts, poetic?



essentialsaltes -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 12:15:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:

It would be difficult to maintain that a literal interpretation of the Bible supports a moving earth:

Either your understanding of “literalist” is totally screwball or meteorologists all believe in geocentricism.
Do you suppose meteorologists all believe in geocentricism? I think not.


I have not faulted the writers of the bible for using terms like sunrise and sunset. So you may cease knocking the stuffing out of that straw man.

On the other hand, I have never heard meteorologists refer to the foundations of the earth, or seen them point out the pillars on the satellite map.



DanJames -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 5:02:17 PM)

I'm sorry if the research has already been done. I stopped reading after it looked like this thread was never going to address the OP. ES, I very easily slip into bouts of depression when I think that my worldview is being turned upside down, and I don't easily dismiss cases about the Bible being untrue. If the Bible says that the Earth is stationary and the Earth is demonstrably not stationary, then the Bible is wrong, or our methods of determining the Earth's movement is wrong. Since the latter is very unlikely to be the case in this scenario because of the many points of reference and physics equations that go into describing the motion of the earth, then we've either misinterpreted the verse or the Bible is wrong. Allow me to go to bat for the Bible before I loose my sanity.

I took a minute to look at one of the verses you cited: 1 Chronicles 16:30. The verse describes the earth as being "established; it cannot be moved." A couple of thoughts came to mind:
1) The passage is in a song of praise sung by David. It is, as such poetic and the true meaning would have to be determined before we conclude that David was incorrect in his divinely inspired song. Realize, the meaning of the passage is true, not necissarily the word-for-word statement. Just like we would say that God "leads us beside still waters," and "makes us lie down in green pastures." God has never lead me down a river or told me to lay in the grass, but the actual meaning is true in that he gives us peace and rest.

2) In the literal word-for-word sense, they may not have been using the word "moved" in the sense as to say that the earth is stationary. To find out how this word is used, I looked it up in a Hebrew lexicon. Here is the meaning of the word "mowt" translated in most translations as "move"
quote:

a primitive root; to waver; by implication , to slip, shake, fall:-be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall(-ing down), be (re-)moved, be ready, shake, slide, slip.

So, as I suspected, the song-writer is not describing that the earth will not be set in motion, but that the earth "ain't goin' no where". The work that God did to set the create the earth and set it in its path is one that will not be changed. The earth will not be destroyed and in the sense of Physics, the friction of the earth is enough that no force will cause a change in its path. I guess that's how I would interpret it.



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 5:31:56 PM)

quote:

How do we know that the geocentric references are all poetic, but Genesis is not, in at least some parts, poetic?
One last time, es, this question belongs on The Bible forum where principles of proper hermeneutics can be discussed appropriately. The exegetical methodology for determining context, original intent, literary genre and the like is not a subject for S&O discussion.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/1/2008 11:27:56 PM)

Unk alluded to this earlier, but I think the important point got missed; there is no reason (nor has there ever been a reason) to dismiss the 'literal' reading of 1Ch 16:30, and Psalm 93:1. From our perspective, the sun and the stars literally appear to move about us. As he pointed out, meteorologists use the language every day, and they are being neither allegorical nor poetic, but colloquial.

So there is no argument here for dismissing a literal translation; there would however be a problem with wedding a translation to a particular scientific theory - and that is true no matter how old or modern that theory might be.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 3:20:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Unk alluded to this earlier, but I think the important point got missed; there is no reason (nor has there ever been a reason) to dismiss the 'literal' reading of 1Ch 16:30, and Psalm 93:1. From our perspective, the sun and the stars literally appear to move about us. As he pointed out, meteorologists use the language every day, and they are being neither allegorical nor poetic, but colloquial.

So there is no argument here for dismissing a literal translation; there would however be a problem with wedding a translation to a particular scientific theory - and that is true no matter how old or modern that theory might be.



I agree with your characterization of the language as colloquial. But you are missing another important point. No one, prior to Copernicus, would have distinguished the colloquial from the literal. The colloquial language of scripture here was deemed to be both literal and scientific until scientific study showed that could not be.

Without the scientific revolution, the only interpretation of the passages ever offered in Christian thought was one that identified colloquial, literal and scientific as one and the same.

The modern disassociation of the colloquial from the scientific comes about because science has shown that reality does not correspond to the literal meaning.

This is a clear, historical case of the Church allowing for extra-biblical knowledge of creation to inform its interpretation of scripture, on the grounds that general and special revelation (creation and scripture) cannot be in conflict with each other and that knowledge of general revelation may act as a corrective of fallible interpretations of scripture.

As such it is a salutary model for the Church in dealing with more recent scientific discoveries as well.



essentialsaltes -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 11:51:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Unk alluded to this earlier, but I think the important point got missed; there is no reason (nor has there ever been a reason) to dismiss the 'literal' reading of 1Ch 16:30, and Psalm 93:1. From our perspective, the sun and the stars literally appear to move about us.


But those passages don't describe the motion of the stars, but rather the fixity of the earth. Nevertheless, it's true that, from our perspective, the earth doesn't go anywhere - it stays under our feet. I'm less sure that it is 'colloquial' to say that the earth is set on a foundation, or on pillars. Those who study the beliefs of the ancient Israelites seem to agree that "literal literal" pillars were intended.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 12:20:48 PM)

quote:

I agree with your characterization of the language as colloquial. But you are missing another important point. No one, prior to Copernicus, would have distinguished the colloquial from the literal. The colloquial language of scripture here was deemed to be both literal and scientific until scientific study showed that could not be.

Without the scientific revolution, the only interpretation of the passages ever offered in Christian thought was one that identified colloquial, literal and scientific as one and the same.

The modern disassociation of the colloquial from the scientific comes about because science has shown that reality does not correspond to the literal meaning.

This is a clear, historical case of the Church allowing for extra-biblical knowledge of creation to inform its interpretation of scripture, on the grounds that general and special revelation (creation and scripture) cannot be in conflict with each other and that knowledge of general revelation may act as a corrective of fallible interpretations of scripture.

As such it is a salutary model for the Church in dealing with more recent scientific discoveries as well.


Well, I think that your point doesn’t actually contradict my point but instead supports it.

Scientific language is actually a very limited and specific thing, by necessity; this is why we very rarely use it as a way of conveying most of the information we actually use. Even presumptive books of ‘popular’ science by folks like Sagan and Hawking and Dawkins use scientific language rather loosely. And most of what we do throughout our daily lives, our journalism, our legal communications, much of our history all utilizes various sorts of descriptive language that while having it’s own peculiarities, isn’t particularly ‘scientific’.

Indeed, even in the case of geocentrism, the Church had alternate science it relied on, so the clash in many ways was as much a clash of ‘old science’ and ‘new science’ as it was the stereotypical clash of science and Scripture as it is often depicted.

So I think there is little need to subject Scripture to scientific correction, and little reason to try to correlate science to fit Scripture; what there is instead is a need for a clear understanding of the limits of science, and scientific language, as well as the understanding that Scripture gives us an understanding of reality science never can.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 12:24:13 PM)

quote:

But those passages don't describe the motion of the stars, but rather the fixity of the earth. Nevertheless, it's true that, from our perspective, the earth doesn't go anywhere - it stays under our feet. I'm less sure that it is 'colloquial' to say that the earth is set on a foundation, or on pillars. Those who study the beliefs of the ancient Israelites seem to agree that "literal literal" pillars were intended.


Again, while I have no problem admitting the often poetic nature of Scripture (the Psalms after all were songs) understanding such a thing really doesn't require us to see them as 'inaccurate' scientifically or untrue; indeed, the power of the language contained therein conveys truths no science journal ever could.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 12:42:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
So I think there is little need to subject Scripture to scientific correction, and little reason to try to correlate science to fit Scripture; what there is instead is a need for a clear understanding of the limits of science, and scientific language, as well as the understanding that Scripture gives us an understanding of reality science never can.


I agree with all of this. I have never suggested subjecting scripture to scientific correction. What sometimes needs to be corrected is limited and fallible human understanding of scripture. And the reality of creation, as made known to us through science, may be a means of correcting a limited understanding of scripture.

Yes, the geocentrism debate was as much old science vs new science, but the old science was defended by an appeal to scripture without thought that the understanding of scripture, which made it more compatible with the old science might be wrong, and that there could be ways of accommodating one's understanding of scripture within the new scientific paradigm. Eventually the Church got there. But it took both the challenge of the new science to raise questions about how the scripture should be understood and the vindication of the new science to confirm that the former understanding of scripture should be discarded.

What is missing today is the recognition that the reality of creation constitutes a valid authority on its own merit which can legitimately challenge a traditional interpretation of scripture.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 12:57:42 PM)

quote:

I agree with all of this. I have never suggested subjecting scripture to scientific correction. What sometimes needs to be corrected is limited and fallible human understanding of scripture. And the reality of creation, as made known to us through science, may be a means of correcting a limited understanding of scripture.

Yes, the geocentrism debate was as much old science vs new science, but the old science was defended by an appeal to scripture without thought that the understanding of scripture, which made it more compatible with the old science might be wrong, and that there could be ways of accommodating one's understanding of scripture within the new scientific paradigm. Eventually the Church got there. But it took both the challenge of the new science to raise questions about how the scripture should be understood and the vindication of the new science to confirm that the former understanding of scripture should be discarded.

What is missing today is the recognition that the reality of creation constitutes a valid authority on its own merit which can legitimately challenge a traditional interpretation of scripture.


I really don’t think it has as much to do with interpretations of Scripture as it might have to do with our understanding of what Scripture is. If we maintain a plain reading of Scripture and don’t try to subject it to the latest understanding of science, there will be little need to ‘interpret’ it at all.

If anything, it is interpretations of science that need to be reigned in – because the greatest affront to scientific thinking today isn’t coming from ‘Biblical literalists’, but from those who would use it as a means to justify their belief in materialism, which is a wholly metaphysical proposition.



Zuniceratops -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 2:11:18 PM)

I think DanJames has a good response to ES' OP. I was going to use the same argument, but I've been busy the past two days and he beat me to it.
But I can add that the Bible has never supported geocentrism, or heliocentrism for that matter. It has never said anything about what orbits what in the universe. Geocentrism became part of the church's beliefs after some of the early church fathers, namely Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, incorporated the pagan philosophies of Aristotle into the church's beliefs. So the church's fiasco with geocentrism was a result of making non-Scriptural science equal with Scripture.
Creation science, on the other hand, is well supported by Scripture, in large part because it is based on Scripture, instead of being a theory people invented apart from Scripture and then tried to find support for in Scripture. I don't see how anyone could believe that Scripture teaches geocentrism unless they had already decided beforehand that it does so. If the Israelites believed in geocentrism, it wasn't because that was what the Scriptures taught.



essentialsaltes -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 2:30:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops

But I can add that the Bible has never supported geocentrism


I somewhat regret using geocentrism in the Subject line, for the more pertinent question is whether the bible describes a fixed earth (set upon foundations and pillars).



essentialsaltes -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 2:35:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DanJames
The work that God did to set the create the earth and set it in its path is one that will not be changed. The earth will not be destroyed and in the sense of Physics, the friction of the earth is enough that no force will cause a change in its path.


Again I don't know how literal 'literal' is, but the Earth's orbit is changed (slightly) by the gravitational effects of the other planets.

OTOH, I would really hate to definitively prove you wrong if it meant a giant asteroid hitting the earth in the next, oh, century or so.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 2:36:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I agree with all of this. I have never suggested subjecting scripture to scientific correction. What sometimes needs to be corrected is limited and fallible human understanding of scripture. And the reality of creation, as made known to us through science, may be a means of correcting a limited understanding of scripture.

Yes, the geocentrism debate was as much old science vs new science, but the old science was defended by an appeal to scripture without thought that the understanding of scripture, which made it more compatible with the old science might be wrong, and that there could be ways of accommodating one's understanding of scripture within the new scientific paradigm. Eventually the Church got there. But it took both the challenge of the new science to raise questions about how the scripture should be understood and the vindication of the new science to confirm that the former understanding of scripture should be discarded.

What is missing today is the recognition that the reality of creation constitutes a valid authority on its own merit which can legitimately challenge a traditional interpretation of scripture.


I really don’t think it has as much to do with interpretations of Scripture as it might have to do with our understanding of what Scripture is.


Understanding scripture and interpreting scripture (as with any verbal or written communication) amounts to the same thing. We understand by interpreting the communication. Without interpretation there is only meaningless sound or drawn squiggles. Interpretation is what changes them into comprehensible communication.

quote:

If we maintain a plain reading of Scripture and don’t try to subject it to the latest understanding of science, there will be little need to ‘interpret’ it at all.


A plain reading IS interpretation. The only question is whether it is a correct interpretation.
A second question is whether it ought to be a "default" interpretation. Should one assume a plain reading when there is no explicit textual guidance on what interpretation is intended by the author. Some make this a hermeneutical principle, but I have never seen it justified.

And, of course, there is also the question of whose plain reading. We are ego-centric enough to assume that what is a plain reading for ourselves would also be a plain reading for someone else. That is not evident even within our own generation and culture and certainly not to be taken for granted across generations and cultures.

So far from there being "little need" to interpret a plain reading, the very concept of "plain reading" hides a substantial core of interpretation.

quote:

If anything, it is interpretations of science that need to be reigned in – because the greatest affront to scientific thinking today isn’t coming from ‘Biblical literalists’, but from those who would use it as a means to justify their belief in materialism, which is a wholly metaphysical proposition.



Well that is just muddling two different matters. If the enemy is atheism, the attack should be directly on atheism not on science. The only thing we need to determine about science is whether or not it is providing reasonably accurate models of created nature and its operations.

If the answer is "no, science is not providing an accurate model of nature", nature itself will tell us that because the science will no longer "work". On this basis we can certainly eliminate YEC as scientific since it clearly does not work in real terms with real data. ID is a more open question scientifically, since it has not yet produced the sort of scientific basis on which it could be tested.

If the answer is "yes, science is providing as accurate a model of created nature as current data allows", then we have two obligations:

1. to understand/interpret scripture in a way that does not conflict with our understanding/ interpretation of nature, and
2. to protest and oppose any misuse of science to support atheism.

The basic problem with anti-evolutionists is that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of showing that atheists are misusing the scientific information, they assume that the atheists are correct in their philosophical interpretation of the science and so chuck out both the science and the atheism together. Unfortunately, this means that when the science is right, they have to take a stand against reality, against the very creation they claim to believe in.

btw, we should note that not even all atheists agree with using scientific information to buttress atheism as a philosophy. That makes it doubly wrong to conflate scientific controversy with theological controversy.

In short, attacking science as a way of attacking atheism is just wrong headed. If there is a problem with the science, show what it is scientifically. It is not necessary in this case to bring atheism into the picture at all.

If the problem is atheism, show how the science is compatible with belief and that atheists are in the wrong to claim science as their particular fief. After all, Paul understood that creation clearly presents the glory of God, even to the unbeliever. So we do not need a special "Christian" or "scriptural" description of creation. It is creation as the unbeliever sees it that speaks of God's power and majesty. Otherwise, there would be no basis on which to condemn their unbelief.

IOW both the believer and the unbeliever must see the same created reality; the believer will see it to the glory of God, the unbeliever to their own condemnation. General revelation makes no sense if reality differs according to the presence or absence of faith.



Zuniceratops -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 3:55:07 PM)

quote:

I somewhat regret using geocentrism in the Subject line, for the more pertinent question is whether the bible describes a fixed earth (set upon foundations and pillars).

Well, the Bible doesn't support a fixed earth, either.
Perhaps, when David wroted Psalm 63, he was thinking that the earth was firmly established on pillars. But the message of Psalm 63:1 (and what I think David was focusing on) is that God has set up the planet earth and everything on it, and it can't be shaken or overthrown, literally, figuratively, spiritually, or physically, apart from God's will. The verse doesn't say anything about either cosmology, so it can't be used as support for either. It's a Psalm, and should be read as poetry, not as a science paper on cosmology or even as a historic narrative.

quote:

Again I don't know how literal 'literal' is, but the Earth's orbit is changed (slightly) by the gravitational effects of the other planets.

OTOH, I would really hate to definitively prove you wrong if it meant a giant asteroid hitting the earth in the next, oh, century or so.


Jupiter and the other large planets may influence planet earth's orbit, but that is not the same thing as overthrowing the world. And even an asteroid can't destroy the earth apart from God's will.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/2/2008 4:04:43 PM)

quote:

Understanding scripture and interpreting scripture (as with any verbal or written communication) amounts to the same thing. We understand by interpreting the communication. Without interpretation there is only meaningless sound or drawn squiggles. Interpretation is what changes them into comprehensible communication.


Yes, but you are really using a different sense of ‘interpretation’ than has been used up until now.

Obviously we have to comprehend the language being used; but that doesn’t necessarily mean applying an extra-ordinary filter of ‘allegory’ or ‘literalism’ as has been suggested here – the best reading of the Bible begins with a plain reading of the text which allows the text to lead us, not to come to the text with a certain presumption about how to understand it.

quote:

A plain reading IS interpretation. The only question is whether it is a correct interpretation.
A second question is whether it ought to be a "default" interpretation. Should one assume a plain reading when there is no explicit textual guidance on what interpretation is intended by the author. Some make this a hermeneutical principle, but I have never seen it justified.

And, of course, there is also the question of whose plain reading. We are ego-centric enough to assume that what is a plain reading for ourselves would also be a plain reading for someone else. That is not evident even within our own generation and culture and certainly not to be taken for granted across generations and cultures.

So far from there being "little need" to interpret a plain reading, the very concept of "plain reading" hides a substantial core of interpretation.


I think you are reading too much into the term ‘plain reading’. ;)

A plain reading just assumes there is no hidden secondary meaning one has to tease out of the text. It would seem a pretty safe assumption for a text which appears to have been written simply in a simple language for a simple people. This doesn’t mean one doesn’t ever consider other ways to understand the text, that metaphor and poetry play no part, but Scripture does a pretty good job of indicating when this happens, so we have no reason to impose such readings simply because we find the plain reading disagreeable to our modern sensibilities.

quote:

Well that is just muddling two different matters. If the enemy is atheism, the attack should be directly on atheism not on science. The only thing we need to determine about science is whether or not it is providing reasonably accurate models of created nature and its operations.


No, I’m not ‘muddling’ the case, but a rather it is materialists who are doing so – I agree the standard should be otherwise, but I am not the person to complain to.

quote:

If the answer is "no, science is not providing an accurate model of nature", nature itself will tell us that because the science will no longer "work". On this basis we can certainly eliminate YEC as scientific since it clearly does not work in real terms with real data. ID is a more open question scientifically, since it has not yet produced the sort of scientific basis on which it could be tested.

If the answer is "yes, science is providing as accurate a model of created nature as current data allows", then we have two obligations:

1. to understand/interpret scripture in a way that does not conflict with our understanding/ interpretation of nature, and
2. to protest and oppose any misuse of science to support atheism.


The problem is really with your first point.

We should never “understand/interpret scripture in a way that does not conflict with our understanding/ interpretation of nature” because our understanding of nature is ever changing. What you are in reality is saying is that we should subject Scripture to the prevailing notions of a consensus of the scientific community – in doing so you would commit the same sin the Catholic Church did by elevating Aristotle’s idea of the centricity of earth to the level of Scriptural truth – though in this case you would do this with evolutionary theory. Science is by nature always a temporary proposition, Scripture never is, and so we can never subject one to the other.

We can however humbly admit that our interpretation of Scripture may be lacking, or consider that the science has simply not arrived at an a point of agreement – but attempting to reconcile them by re-interpretation is a wheel that leads us in a never ending cycle of interpreting Scripture to suit our own limited understanding.

quote:

The basic problem with anti-evolutionists is that they throw out the baby with the bathwater. Instead of showing that atheists are misusing the scientific information, they assume that the atheists are correct in their philosophical interpretation of the science and so chuck out both the science and the atheism together. Unfortunately, this means that when the science is right, they have to take a stand against reality, against the very creation they claim to believe in.

btw, we should note that not even all atheists agree with using scientific information to buttress atheism as a philosophy. That makes it doubly wrong to conflate scientific controversy with theological controversy.

In short, attacking science as a way of attacking atheism is just wrong headed. If there is a problem with the science, show what it is scientifically. It is not necessary in this case to bring atheism into the picture at all.

If the problem is atheism, show how the science is compatible with belief and that atheists are in the wrong to claim science as their particular fief. After all, Paul understood that creation clearly presents the glory of God, even to the unbeliever. So we do not need a special "Christian" or "scriptural" description of creation. It is creation as the unbeliever sees it that speaks of God's power and majesty. Otherwise, there would be no basis on which to condemn their unbelief.

IOW both the believer and the unbeliever must see the same created reality; the believer will see it to the glory of God, the unbeliever to their own condemnation. General revelation makes no sense if reality differs according to the presence or absence of faith.


I just want to make it clear, I don’t ‘attack science’ nor do I think do most Creationists – I do however continue to assert the very limited nature of science, and to resist attempts to turn it into a belief system.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI