|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Self interpreting Scriptures?
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
The issue is being so sure that you have the truth, in all its completeness, that you have to have everyone else agree with it.
I do not have that conviction. Only Kim Jong Un has that. Have I ever intimated any such conviction or are you inferring it? If so you are mistaken. I do think though that it is possible to have genuine faith. Not the Copeland kind where you talk and God jumps, but the kind that reassures that you are a kid in his family.
quote:
Do you really think that everyone will answer for whether they interpret Scripture the same way? That doesn't seem Biblical to me. I was always taught that salvation came through faith in Jesus Christ, not through being in complete agreement with what every verse in the Bible meant.
Certainly not and I agree such a view would not be Biblical. I think the basis of judgement is what you have done with the genuine understanding God has gifted you with. (To every man he has given a measure..)When you reject the truth I think he withdraws from you but that the door remains open. (While there's life ..hope) quote:
I don't believe that the Bible condemns doubt, or questioning. If it does then I guess I'm fucked, but then one has to start asking why God created brains if we were forbidden to try using them. If God is only happy with one point of view, then God really ought to have pre-programmed it in, instead of allowing all this messy diversity of thought and all the difficulties involved in communicating through the imprecision of language (amplified by translation between languages and a couple of thousand years of cultural change).
Once again I agree. Doubt or questioning is not something that Jesus condemned. You just have to consider Thomas, Peter or the adulterous woman to get that it isn't at all about those things. Nor is it about using your brains or not using them. However, we are more than our bodies or our brains. I think the messy diversity you mention is accounted for if we let the Bible teach us with all its imperfect heroes who were often just as stuffed up as us. No, I think in the end it is about humility. Scripture says He fills the empty with good things.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.
What's his interpretation?
Whatever your want it to be
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?
How could He not?
Now that is arguing like a Rabbi. I realise that Jesus laid aside his godly attributes to become human but would that have included his common sense?
quote:
But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.
Why? [/QUOTE]
Because it is a figment of your imagination perhaps?
quote:
What Jesus are you believing in?
The same one as you: the one witnessed to in the New Testament.[/QUOTE]
Well I doubt it as he refuses to conform to our mentalities.
There's a kiwi poet called JK Baxter who wrote a poem called the Maori Jesus. Not the NT one though. Maori Jesus
quote:
No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else. [/QB]
Here I think you fail Philosophy 101.You cannot ride multiple realities by saying all are mythical and also historical.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
[qb]
You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.
I can.
You have a logic problem here. Are you saying that you are constructing your reality to such an extent that a myth to you is more real than your reality? Sounds to me like Plato gone mad.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@ Martin. Here's a bloke I like listening to. Dave Hunt You tube Sermon.
What's his interpretation?
Whatever your want it to be
See, you are postmodern. That's what art is all about.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You seem to want me to engage on the presupposition that scripture is based on myths.
You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God. How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth? But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.
What Jesus are you believing in? A possibly historical human about whom swirls myths? You could find a better role model than that.
1) I do not have a problem with Jesus, as God in human form, believing in myth.
2) I do not have a problem with worshipping such an incarnate God.
Why on earth do you feel qualified to claim that my belief in Jesus can be no good to me? I worship the incarnate God, NOT an "historical human about whom swirls myths". The fact that I disagree, minorly, about aspects of who Christ was does NOT mean that I don't believe that he was God incarnate.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No. There's the false dichotomy again. The question is rather: why are you so convinced that it IS a complete divine message that you feel the need to show those who aren't convinced it's a complete divine message that they are wrong?
Even by starting this thread, there's a sense that you are going out of your way to prove things. For whose benefit, exactly?
I think it is called evangelism in the New Testament. So the false dichotomy is caring enough to affirm truth? Well, (shrug) feel free to ignore. One day everyone will answer for their choices ( if the Bible is correct). Sounds judgemental I know but there it is. Here's a question for you. What if you die and discover yourself on the wrong side of eternity. You've made a ghastly mistake and it is too late to remediate? 'Oh ***! my mates on SOF were mostly on the broad road.'
Oh, screw that. What you're really saying is "Everything I believe to be truth is something that matters for eternity. Therefore, I am justified in pushing it on people, because I am affecting their eternal destiny."
Something can be true without affecting one's eternal destiny. You're not evangelising; you're just using that as justification for being pushy and ignoring nuance.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
quote:
How could God allow his incarnation in human form to believe in myth?
How could He not?
Now that is arguing like a Rabbi. I realise that Jesus laid aside his godly attributes to become human but would that have included his common sense?
To be fully human is to believe in myth. Fairy tales. Some have the opportunity to develop beyond that. Jesus did to a superhuman transcendent extent, by His divine nature, despite not having the culturally accreted intellectual tools to do so. What does common sense have to do with the retention of believing in myth? How does common sense enable one to believe myth? YECs have more common sense than all scientists?
quote:
quote:
But since you can't go past that assumption, what use to you is your belief in Jesus? None.
Why?
Because it is a figment of your imagination perhaps?
quote:
What? My belief in Jesus and its use to me? If you say so.
quote:
What Jesus are you believing in?
The same one as you: the one witnessed to in the New Testament.
[/QUOTE]
Well I doubt it as he refuses to conform to our mentalities.
There's a kiwi poet called JK Baxter who wrote a poem called the Maori Jesus. Not the NT one though. Maori Jesus
[/QUOTE]
So you do believe in the Jesus witnessed to in the New Testament, but you doubt that I do despite my saying that I do because he refuses to conform to our mentalities?
quote:
quote:
No, a definitely 100% historical 100% human. In literary terms He is 100% mythic too. The claim of divinity is literarily mythic. I accept the claim. I couldn't possibly do any better and neither can you or anyone else.
Here I think you fail Philosophy 101.
So you've taught philosophy. Wow.
quote:
You cannot ride multiple realities by saying all are mythical and also historical.
quote:
If you say so.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
You can't have a real Jesus if you put that as a caveat..not if Jesus is God.
I can.
You have a logic problem here.
Where?
quote:
Are you saying that you are constructing your reality to such an extent that a myth to you is more real than your reality?
No.
quote:
Sounds to me like Plato gone mad.
Me too.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?
I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...
Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?
I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...
Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.
The Jesus of the Bible is neither a sacramental Jesus or a post-modern Jesus. He said himself in Matt 24 that false Christs would arise. You think you've come from where I am now but who made Derrida et al the holy screen to see everything through? Their insight ISTM was to allow for the validity of text to be determined by the reader's world as well as by the writer's. It isn't authoritative or unquestionable. The danger of a false Jesus is a false gospel that does not save.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
Why on earth do you feel qualified to claim that my belief in Jesus can be no good to me? I worship the incarnate God, NOT an "historical human about whom swirls myths"
I have no idea what you believe. You are commenting of a conversation without recognising the context. I am interested though in what kind of nuance you think important.
[code]
[ 27. September 2016, 21:55: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.
Yes they can. Indeed the whole of the Christian faith is built on that kind of oxymoron: the incarnation.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.
Yes they can. Indeed the whole of the Christian faith is built on that kind of oxymoron: the incarnation.
I would say paradox rather than oxymoron but YMMV.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jamat--
quote:
I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.
--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)
NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--
quote:
I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.
--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)
NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.
Nice one ..depending one your gender?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I feel degraded by this. Soiled. A fool. I only have myself to blame for having any hope that ... for any hope period. Vanity eh? Futility. I just failed very similarly with my 86 year old mother too. Will I ever learn? To give up trying to throw good thinking after bad?
I also feel reproached. If I have not charity ...
Not for the first time: God bless you Jamat.
Well that's just unnecessary. All I was saying was that two contradictory things cannot be true at the same time.
mr cheesy said it Jamat. And I can assume nothing at all in this conversation.
quote:
The Jesus of the Bible is neither a sacramental Jesus or a post-modern Jesus.
Of course He isn't. Agreed. Why say it?
quote:
He said himself in Matt 24 that false Christs would arise.
I know. Mine isn't. Any more than yours.
quote:
You think you've come from where I am now
Fundamentalism. Not in your head.
quote:
but who made Derrida et al the holy screen to see everything through?
Evolution.
quote:
Their insight ISTM was to allow for the validity of text to be determined by the reader's world as well as by the writer's. It isn't authoritative or unquestionable.
It's rational. Evolutionary. We inevitably know more than the writer. Any writer. In accumulated technique, understanding, insight since they wrote. And less. Consciousness is such an ephemeral thing. Making up stories from stories is such a fraught business. Constantly edited, noisy, entropic, incoherent. There's no going back, as in this thread.
quote:
The danger of a false Jesus is a false gospel that does not save.
It certainly is. You can't know that you've fallen in to that pit. It'll be all right. That's the good news.
Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jamat--
How are you defining "myth", please?
I know of at least two definitions:
--a story that is false;
--a deep Story that helps you live, which may or may not have factual elements.
ISTM you're using the first definition.
IMHO, Myth is based on story and truth; and Legend is based on story and fact. Sometimes, myth and legend intertwine, as with King Arthur.
Thx.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--
How are you defining "myth", please?
I know of at least two definitions:
--a story that is false;
--a deep Story that helps you live, which may or may not have factual elements.
ISTM you're using the first definition.
IMHO, Myth is based on story and truth; and Legend is based on story and fact. Sometimes, myth and legend intertwine, as with King Arthur.
Thx.
Agreed. The value of myth is in the 'deeper' truth implicit in the narrative. However, I was using it as 'untrue' belief.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.
There is dissonance in this that I simply cannot digest, sorry.
Regarding your comments about evolution. Everyone here seems to swallow it but I do not but that is old ground. On another note, I do hope your health is holding up mate. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
@Hosts
As stated, I only began this thread as the inerrancy one was temporarily closed. Should you wish to close it, and move this discussion there, I have no objection.
Jamat
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting. Although this thread has devolved into a discussion of the former and the latter hasn't had a look-in since the OP.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jamat--
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--
quote:
I’ve always felt that a person’s intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic.
--American First Lady Abigail Adams. (Quotery)
NOTE: That's not a slam at your intelligence. Just pointing out that there are other ways to look at contradictions, FWIW.
Nice one ..depending one your gender?
LOL. Abigail was an ardent feminist, at a time when women had very few rights. Don't know whether she was commenting on men, or just using the accepted pronoun.
If you look at the main page for her on that site, you'll see much more direct comments on patriarchy. She told her husband, John Adams, to "remember the ladies" in setting up the country. Don't know whether he didn't bother, or no one would listen. Wish *she'd* been president!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.
It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..."
If you define the word 'interpretation' you can look at it in one sense as the way a reader understands a specific meaning or alternatively as the way meaning is transferred. It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative. It is already evident that the Bible is a library of varied works of genres from narrative to poetry. All of which adds up to a very general argument if held in a vacuum. I'm sure we mostly would agree that Paul claimed apostolic authority. However, was Peter appointed the first pope? I'd say that's a stretch but not to an RC. Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims in the second sense. It claims to transfer a divine message.
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Because the true Jesus believed things that aren't true doesn't make them true or Him untrue.
There is dissonance in this that I simply cannot digest, sorry.
Regarding your comments about evolution. Everyone here seems to swallow it but I do not but that is old ground. On another note, I do hope your health is holding up mate.
Thanks mate, I'll die fit as a fiddle. My BP is normal, blood sugar very well controlled.
No apology necessary on the fact that Jesus believed things that aren't true and that that does not invalidate Him in the slightest and that you can't compute that. He was not as wrong as you on evolution of course, according to His lights. The Greeks starting with Anaximander had inevitably intuited it rationally 600 years before Him of course.
Jesus was inevitably wrong by our current thinking across the board, how could He not be? His self interpretation of scripture was fully anciently Jewishly enculturated with ancient Greek and other Asian ideas thrown in for two thousand years, stewed in to the Jewish culture.
That's fully human. In which the fully divine incarnated.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative
Translation: The bits one wants to believe are literal are and the bits one doesn't, are not.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.
It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..."
If you define the word 'interpretation' you can look at it in one sense as the way a reader understands a specific meaning or alternatively as the way meaning is transferred. It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative. It is already evident that the Bible is a library of varied works of genres from narrative to poetry. All of which adds up to a very general argument if held in a vacuum. I'm sure we mostly would agree that Paul claimed apostolic authority. However, was Peter appointed the first pope? I'd say that's a stretch but not to an RC. Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims in the second sense. It claims to transfer a divine message.
Like kill every man, woman and child.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[/qb]
Like kill every man, woman and child. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Is there a point somewhere?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yes, but you can't possibly see it despite everyone else here being able to. Which is fine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
It is true that at times meaning in texts are layered and connotative and at other times they are denotative
Translation: The bits one wants to believe are literal are and the bits one doesn't, are not.
I struggle to take this seriously. Are you honestly that naïve?
Jesus early life was in Nazareth = denotative.
ie literal.
A door was opened heaven= Now there is something to talk about.
This is not a discussion that is meaningful if it is about generalities.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That would be a pity because there really is a difference between inerrant and self-interpreting.
What is there to talk about? The bible is obviously not self-interpreting. If it was there would not be so many different interpretations.
It is assertive of its own authority as shown by the verses I quoted in the OP. So many times the writers claim "And the word of the Lord came to..." ... Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting but just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.
Like kill every man, woman and child.
You can't see that can you?
Ohhhhhh! It's not a problem for you is it? God DID order that. And yes, I have been there. We do overlap to that degree.
[ 28. September 2016, 20:31: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jamat--
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like kill every man, woman and child.
Is there a point somewhere?
Do you actually think that's funny? If it happened, it certainly wasn't funny--even if God thought it was justified.
Sadness, anger, empathy, even fear would be ok. But laughter???
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Like kill every man, woman and child.
Is there a point somewhere?
Do you actually think that's funny? If it happened, it certainly wasn't funny--even if God thought it was justified.
Sadness, anger, empathy, even fear would be ok. But laughter???
Sure I'm an axe murderer duh.
People complain about SL bringing every argument back to church/state.
What has that particular canard got to do with scriptural interpretation?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Jamat--
As to whether God really told the Hebrews/Israelites, on oh so many occasions, to take over land and slaughter everyone who was there: men, women, kids. Real people.
Interpretation of that matters: Did that literally happen? Did God hate those people? Does God take sides? Is God a blood-thirsty ogre? Did the Hebrews/Israelites honestly think God wanted them to do that, but they somehow got their interpretation tragically wrong? Did they decide on slaughter on their own, then blame it on God? Etc.
If you're going to take the Bible some combination of literally and seriously, then do that--but really do it. E.g., take the people in it seriously. What, if anything, was God doing in *their* lives?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes, but you can't possibly see it despite everyone else here being able to. Which is fine.
Fine in what sense? Maybe God could see stuff everyone else here can't.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It can't be helped. You think?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Jamat--
As to whether God really told the Hebrews/Israelites, on oh so many occasions, to take over land and slaughter everyone who was there: men, women, kids. Real people.
Interpretation of that matters: Did that literally happen? Did God hate those people? Does God take sides? Is God a blood-thirsty ogre? Did the Hebrews/Israelites honestly think God wanted them to do that, but they somehow got their interpretation tragically wrong? Did they decide on slaughter on their own, then blame it on God? Etc.
If you're going to take the Bible some combination of literally and seriously, then do that--but really do it. E.g., take the people in it seriously. What, if anything, was God doing in *their* lives?
Look what you've done Martin!
@Golden Key: I can see this is an important issue for lots of people. I have been pulled into this discussion before and it is a thread killer. Suffice it to say that I think There are ways to understand it but on SOF it is a true dead horse and irrelevant to present discussion.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.
You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.
You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.
I did that for 40 years.
I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.
I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry, from the other thread, you obviously believe that parts of the Bible are Satanic lies. On what basis?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Golden Key: I can see this is an important issue for lots of people. I have been pulled into this discussion before and it is a thread killer.
It is a thread killer because it cannot be answered by the self-interpreting crowd with intellectual integrity.
quote:
Suffice it to say that I think There are ways to understand it but on SOF it is a true dead horse and irrelevant to present discussion.
It is completely relevant. It is a direct example of why the Bible cannot be self-interpreting and Christianity be as labele non the tin. It is one or the other.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.
You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.
You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.
I did that for 40 years.
I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.
I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.
You see. It is true you claim to have moved on from where I am now. Is this not moral and intellectual superiority? "Oh Lord I give you thanks I am not as the rest.."
What goes round etc.
Your concept of irreconcilable seems to take in all your preconceptions such as your 'truth ' story of evolution and your assumptions that Jesus abrogated Moses while presumably pretending to believe in him ( which I think is tosh) and your absurd seeming belief that the Mosaic law is Medo Persian in origin. Presumably you think the flood story is preceded by the Gilgamesh epic. These ideas about ancient history are highly contestable. They may be your truth stories but they are highly combustible. Daniel's date is another. The prophecies cannot have been supernatural so we'll just assign a late date. Etc.
I do think the texts quoted in the OP are claiming authority intrinsically and BTW they are not proving anything but a way to introduce the topic.
"I'm not smart enough!" Are you passive aggressive enough?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
@Golden Key: I can see this is an important issue for lots of people. I have been pulled into this discussion before and it is a thread killer.
It is a thread killer because it cannot be answered by the self-interpreting crowd with intellectual integrity.
quote:
Suffice it to say that I think There are ways to understand it but on SOF it is a true dead horse and irrelevant to present discussion.
It is completely relevant. It is a direct example of why the Bible cannot be self-interpreting and Christianity be as labele non the tin. It is one or the other.
In reply to your first comment, It can be answered but you probably don't like the answer. In reply to your second I have not claimed self interpretation for the Bible. You final comment, I do not understand.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In reply to your first comment, It can be answered but you probably don't like the answer.
Bring it. But you won't like my reply.
quote:
In reply to your second I have not claimed self interpretation for the Bible. You final comment, I do not understand.
Essentially, God the killer does not jibe with Jesus message. Unless your God is more like Zeus or Odin than the one Christians claim to worship.
[ 29. September 2016, 02:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's two fallacies without even looking.
Your hermeneutic of my comments is wrong and as you can't be trusted with small matters ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Until you can see where you are wrong in your hermeneutic of me, we're left with your Ptolemaic system. Kepler awaits you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
In reply to your second I have not claimed self interpretation for the Bible. You final comment, I do not understand.
Then why did you title this thread as you did? Just to agree with me?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.
You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.
You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.
I did that for 40 years.
I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.
I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.
You see. It is true you claim to have moved on from where I am now. Is this not moral and intellectual superiority? "Oh Lord I give you thanks I am not as the rest.."
What goes round etc.
Your concept of irreconcilable seems to take in all your preconceptions such as your 'truth ' story of evolution and your assumptions that Jesus abrogated Moses while presumably pretending to believe in him ( which I think is tosh) and your absurd seeming belief that the Mosaic law is Medo Persian in origin. Presumably you think the flood story is preceded by the Gilgamesh epic. These ideas about ancient history are highly contestable. They may be your truth stories but they are highly combustible. Daniel's date is another. The prophecies cannot have been supernatural so we'll just assign a late date. Etc.
I do think the texts quoted in the OP are claiming authority intrinsically and BTW they are not proving anything but a way to introduce the topic.
"I'm not smart enough!" Are you passive aggressive enough?
OK Jamat, I must apologize. I can see where you drew the fallacious conclusion that I was saying that Mosaic law is Medo-Persian, which I wasn't. I was saying that all of your theology is Medo-Persian as a metaphor. In which I am correct. You abrogate nothing. All must be true. Hence you end up with an impossibly Byzantine Ptolemaic theology, which I shared for 40 years.
I apologize because I didn't say that Medo-Persian wasn't literal, despite the fact it obviously isn't as I couldn't possibly make that kind of error to ascribe the mythical Law of Moses to a culture that came a thousand years later DESPITE the fact that the last and greatest edits to the Law of Moses came during and after Medo-Persian cultural immersion.
You know the chief characteristic of the law of the Medes and the Persians of course.
[ 29. September 2016, 13:26: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
None of the proof texts in your OP interpret themselves or claim that any other scriptures do. As you know and agree: 'Biblical Text is certainly not self interpreting'. It claims to interpret the will of God, to slightly paraphrase you: 'Biblical Text ... just as certainly makes interpretive claims ... It claims to transfer a divine message.'.
You believe every one of those messages, that they are all morally equal in some ineffable way and necessarily literally so. A body of legalistic Medo-Persian law. Despite the fact that they obviously aren't, that there is an arc of progressive revelation which continues to this day and beyond that abrogates what it evolved from, epitomized by Jesus in His abrogation of Moses even though He had to believe in the myths of Moses. Revelation isn't by God to man except in the person of Christ. It is by man to man and that can be in one man who is changed by experience.
You must reconcile the irreconcilable. You must build an ever more elaborate Ptolemaic system.
I did that for 40 years.
I'm sure you will be able to for another 40.
I couldn't. I'm not smart enough.
You see. It is true you claim to have moved on from where I am now.
I couldn't not.
quote:
Is this not moral
No.
quote:
and intellectual superiority?
Yes.
quote:
"Oh Lord I give you thanks I am not as the rest.."
No.
quote:
What goes round etc.
Yes.
quote:
Your concept of irreconcilable seems to take in all your preconceptions such as your 'truth ' story of evolution
It's not mine. It's the rocks'. I believe the rocks. They can't lie.
quote:
and your assumptions that Jesus abrogated Moses while presumably pretending to believe in him ( which I think is tosh)
Your fallacious presumption is, yes.
quote:
and your absurd seeming belief that the Mosaic law is Medo Persian in origin.
I don't, as explained above. Your theology, your epistemology is.
quote:
Presumably you think the flood story is preceded by the Gilgamesh epic.
Because it is.
quote:
These ideas about ancient history are highly contestable.
Not to me. Can you show me a contest between authorities?
quote:
They may be your truth stories but they are highly combustible.
Evolution is flammable?
quote:
Daniel's date is another. The prophecies cannot have been supernatural so we'll just assign a late date. Etc.
I'd love them to be supernatural. They may be. To be honest I believe they are and the WHOLE Jonah story. So what? What they signify beyond broad brush strokes I don't know. What the incredibly detailed prophecy of the Kings of the North and South signifies morally, I don't know. Do you? The story of Jonah is sublimely beautiful, whether it's true or not is irrelevant. It's a huge milestone in human moral evolution projected back on to God at least.
quote:
I do think the texts quoted in the OP are claiming authority intrinsically and BTW they are not proving anything but a way to introduce the topic.
"I'm not smart enough!" Are you passive aggressive enough?
No where near.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
So does self-interpreting simply mean that we make the assumption that our preferred canon is internally consistent?
IMHO I have gained greater understanding by accepting that while there may be a unity (probably resulting from the views of the canon makers) there is also diversity and there are contradictory views expressed.
ISTM very likely this results from trying to express religious/spiritual experience in propositional terms, or a desire to turn narratives and poetry etc. into a systematic theology.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
So does self-interpreting simply mean that we make the assumption that our preferred canon is internally consistent
No. It means there is only one interpretation, and it is self-evident. People who reject it, or claim to regret it, are being willful, dishonest, self-serving, and/or disingenuous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Can people keep the genocide argument on the Biblical Inerrancy thread please? I was keeping an open mind as to whether this thread might develop in a different direction, but it looks like we might as well just stick to the Inerrancy thread, so I'll close this one.
By the way, things are not designated Dead Horses so people will stop discussing them, but so they will discuss them here and not swamp the other boards. There is no problem with discussing the genocide question - that's one of the things this board is set up for.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
