|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Self interpreting Scriptures?
|
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
