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

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



Message

gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 1:23:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
We could wrangle about what ‘literal’ means, but it is fairly certain that ‘literal’ is not equal to ‘scientific’ or ‘according to modern classification schema’, so while you could rightly say the descriptions in Scripture are not either of the previous things, there is no reason to say they aren’t literal in the ordinary understanding of the word.


But for people who have little background in the history of the text and its meanings, the scientific meaning is very often their ordinary understanding of the word. And "literal" is also often portrayed as the ordinary understanding of a word.

So, for many people, the literal meaning is the scientific meaning.

So it would be helpful if literalists stopped associating "literal" meaning with the simple reading of a text without interpretation. Discussions like this show that "literal" meaning is far from a plain, simple, uninterpreted meaning.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 1:29:00 PM)

quote:

But for people who have little background in the history of the text and its meanings, the scientific meaning is very often their ordinary understanding of the word. And "literal" is also often portrayed as the ordinary understanding of a word.

So, for many people, the literal meaning is the scientific meaning.

So it would be helpful if literalists stopped associating "literal" meaning with the simple reading of a text without interpretation. Discussions like this show that "literal" meaning is far from a plain, simple, uninterpreted meaning.


I don't think any 'literalist' would argue that the simple reading of the text requires one to be ignorant of history.

You are confusing a simple reading of the text with a simple-minded reading of the text.



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 1:37:30 PM)

quote:

I don't think any 'literalist' would argue that the simple reading of the text requires one to be ignorant of history.
You are absolutely correct, Jack. Understanding context, including historical perspective, is essential to correct exegesis.



drj11 -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 1:43:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I don't think any 'literalist' would argue that the simple reading of the text requires one to be ignorant of history.
You are absolutely correct, Jack. Understanding context, including historical perspective, is essential to correct exegesis.


Then how can one claim scripture interprets itself? All these things are external to scripture and are required to come to a proper understanding?



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 1:54:15 PM)

You know, drj, it's really hard for you not to take this wrong, but explaining proper hermeuneutics to an unbeliever is like explaining differential equations to a first grader. It just doesn't work!



drj11 -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 2:13:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
You know, drj, it's really hard for you not to take this wrong, but explaining proper hermeuneutics to an unbeliever is like explaining differential equations to a first grader. It just doesn't work!


I think I understand...

It is very hard to follow the logical gymnastics necessary to believe that scripture interprets itself, while on the other say knowledge of history and culture are required to interpret scripture. Personally, I find it difficult to maintain that two mutually exclusive, irreconcilable notions as both true.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 2:19:18 PM)

quote:

It is very hard to follow the logical gymnastics necessary to believe that scripture interprets itself, while on the other say knowledge of history and culture are required to interpret scripture. Personally, I find it difficult to maintain that two mutually exclusive, irreconcilable notions as both true.


I don't think one needs to know XYZ about history and culture to accurately read Scripture, but rather that as a modern person in a particular culture one brings baggage to the reading of Scripture that is uneccesary or unhelpful in understanding it.

So it's not so much about 'interpreting' it as it is about keeping ones own predilections from obscuring what is there in the plain reading of the text.



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 2:24:24 PM)

Which is why it's called exegesis as opposed to eisegesis.



swan42 -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 2:27:48 PM)

quote:

Speaking as an 'interested mostly atheist', far be it from me to know whether this is a legitimate explanation, but it does seem to me to be clutching at straws a little. Everything in Genesis is in chronological order.


Yes this appears to he clutching at straws, but it is not strictly speaking; an impossible interpretation. Let me explain. There is an ordering in Genesis, but the only way one would detect whether the ordering is not chronological is to identify some sort of temporal contradiction.

quote:

me:
The distinction between 1st and 2nd might be arbitrary, or might use some other non-chronological distinction such as size or importance.


In absence of a temporal contradiction, and if the ordering were importance rather than chronological then it is impossible to know for certain unless some intrinsic quality of the ordering method were detectable within the text itself. Non-chronological ordering may also be stated in reverse with the most important last and the least important first.

I am the first to admit that chronological ordering is the most obvious interpretation.



swan42 -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 2:30:19 PM)

quote:


So it's not so much about 'interpreting' it as it is about keeping ones own predilections from obscuring what is there in the plain reading of the text.


That's a distinction without a difference.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 2:33:27 PM)

quote:

That's a distinction without a difference.


There is a tremendous difference; in one case we understand that the text has inherent purpose and truth to impart and we must free it to do so, in the other we think that what purpose and truth exists comes from us and we must apply it to the text.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:12:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
Understanding context, including historical perspective, is essential to correct exegesis.



Of course, it is.

But you have a lot of anti-evolutionists out there who don't seem to know that. They continually tell us that they are responding to "the clear message of scripture" to what the text says when they read it "as it was written" , to the "plain meaning" or the "surface text" and without turning to any extra-biblical sources or even without interpretation at all.

That is not correct exegesis since it lacks understanding of the context and historical perspective.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:20:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I don't think one needs to know XYZ about history and culture to accurately read Scripture, but rather that as a modern person in a particular culture one brings baggage to the reading of Scripture that is uneccesary or unhelpful in understanding it.

So it's not so much about 'interpreting' it as it is about keeping ones own predilections from obscuring what is there in the plain reading of the text.


And, for the most part, we don't know, until it is explained to us, what our own predilections are and what role they play in obscuring the text. We take them for granted until we gain some insight through education in comparative culture.

So we still have to interpret (or if you prefer 'translate') the text from its cultural matrix into ours.

There are also literalists who disagree with your position here. They take the stand that God intended his revelation to be clear to all people in all ages without doing the spade work of shedding our own predilections and figuring out what the author was getting at in his own time.



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:21:34 PM)

"What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?"

What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:29:43 PM)

ORIGINAL:swan42
quote:

Me too. Which is why the old earth and old universe evidence cannot be accepted as a lie.

God didn’t tell us that the universe is billions of years old. In truth, nature doesn’t tell us that either.
God’s written word clearly teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old and came into existence before the sun did.
Interpretations of nature that contradict that clear teaching are wrong. It is as simple as that.
Many interpretations of nature clearly contradict Scripture. If those interpretations are God’s “second book”, i.e. on par with Scripture, then God is the author of confusion. The interpretations of nature are constantly changing. Neither God nor His message to us EVER changes. Giving us a book that’s only consistency is that it is constantly changing would be authoring confusion.

Attempting to conform Scripture to currently accepted scientific paradigms is placing interpretations of nature in a position of authority over, i.e. superior to, Scripture. The one who wants us to put the interpretations of nature on par with or superior to Scripture IS the author of confusion because he is the father of all lies.



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:34:59 PM)

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

PS. I grew up in Saskatchewan where I saw grasshoppers by the thousands every summer.

Maybe you are just a slow learner. When I was 5 years old I could have told you that grasshoppoers use their big legs to hopp with and walked on the other legs based on my own observations.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:37:22 PM)

quote:

There are also literalists who disagree with your position here. They take the stand that God intended his revelation to be clear to all people in all ages without doing the spade work of shedding our own predilections and figuring out what the author was getting at in his own time.


Perhaps there are; but I haven't met them, and I don't think any are arguing that here.



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:38:51 PM)

ORIGINAL:gluadys
quote:

Who said anything about interpreting it as a metaphor? Leviticus is not a particularly metaphor-rich text.

You finally said something that I can agree with you on. Your argument from Leviticus has nothing to do with metaphor. You are arguing that the Bible is too severely flawed to put it on par with scientific paradigms.

quote:

Rather, it is likely that they considered their mammalian traits irrelevant in their classification system.

Thank you for refuting your own argument that you strived so hard to promote as valid.



swan42 -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:41:26 PM)

quote:

clearly


There he goes with that word again.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:46:58 PM)

quote:

There he goes with that word again.


You know swan, despite the occasional bright insight, you are getting a little pest like.

Do you really have to clutter up threads with these little comments that add nothing to the discussion?



swan42 -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:51:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

There he goes with that word again.


You know swan, despite the occasional bright insight, you are getting a little pest like.

Do you really have to clutter up threads with these little comments that add nothing to the discussion?


Clearly, everything is unclear to some. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.



Jhud -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/9/2008 4:55:01 PM)

quote:

Clearly, everything is unclear to some. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.


Clearly your vague asides don't change this fact.



unclemonkey -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/10/2008 9:54:52 AM)

ORIGINAL:drj11
quote:

It is very hard to follow the logical gymnastics necessary to believe that scripture interprets itself, while on the other say knowledge of history and culture are required to interpret scripture.

Here is one simple example of Scripture interpreting itself. No “gymnastics” needed.

“Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” – Exodus 20:9-11

“Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” – Exodus 31:17

“But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” – Mark 10:6-8
“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” - Genesis 2:24

This, along with the fact that Genesis is presented as an historical narrative, provides the interpretation for “day” in Genesis 1.

The only time “gymnastics” are required is when one attempts to interpret the days of Genesis 1 as something other than ordinary days.



gluadys -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/10/2008 10:38:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
This, along with the fact that Genesis is presented as an historical narrative,


Is it now? I haven't seen that set of characteristics that distinguishes a historical narrative from a non-historical narrative yet.



drmark -> RE: geocentrism as a case study of interpretation (6/10/2008 2:29:34 PM)

quote:

Is it now? I haven't seen that set of characteristics that distinguishes a historical narrative from a non-historical narrative yet.
I doubt you'll believe that "set of characteristics" even when you see them:

Genesis 1 thru 11—Mythical or Historical?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI