|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 1:02:59 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 524
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
That would be the meaning. I would define supernatural as something occurring outside of nature.
Then by definition something happening outside of the universe would be supernatural.
If that something were subject to laws and we could study it and its effects, then it wouldn't be supernatural.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 2:35:44 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7456
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
If that something were subject to laws and we could study it and its effects, then it wouldn't be supernatural.
So if something follows certain laws it's not supernatural?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 4:35:56 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 482
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If that something were subject to laws and we could study it and its effects, then it wouldn't be supernatural.
So if something follows certain laws it's not supernatural?
This is a pretty interesting question actually.
And I am glad it is being asked!
Basically, if scientists can gather evidence for something, and use that evidence to explain and predict that something, then that something is natural, and within the scope of science.
For example, if scientists discover evidence for God, and they can use this evidence to explain and predict God, then God will be classified as natural.
If the cuase of the big bang is discovered, and evidence for that thing gathered, and models and theories built based on that evidence that can then be used to predict it, then the cause of the big bang will be classified as natural.
Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
It is not enough for something to have a pattern, or for it to follow certain laws. There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 7:12:22 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 524
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
If that something were subject to laws and we could study it and its effects, then it wouldn't be supernatural.
So if something follows certain laws it's not supernatural?
I would say so.
How would you define supernatural?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 8:02:46 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
By that standard, God is natural, not supernatural.
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
In courts of law, testimony is used to explain points of evidence of all other types. Evidence may be shown to juries, but it is still testimony that determines the significance of the evidence being shown.
One might show raw evidence to any number of judges, but it still requires testimony to help them understand what it is evidence of.
And there is a superfluity of testimony to the existence of God; the creation account of Genesis; the world wide flood; the release of the captives under Cyrus, king of Persia; the virgin birth of Jesus; the death by crucifixion; the resurrection and ascension; and the early influence upon the lives of the first Christians.
Doubt came centuries too late to be serious contenders for consideration.
quote:
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
By this standard, nothing is supernatural, for there is always testimony, which is always evidence. Do you suppose there are some other qualifying parameters involved?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 8:10:17 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
A basic college-level course on Christianity would do you a world of good. Absent that, a library or bookstore would be good. Don't be afraid of unfamiliar (to you) ways of looking at scripture.
I learned more helpful information about Christianity in two college courses than in thirty-years of Sunday School and Church.
I've been studying Biblical Theology for 28 years in English, Hebrew, and Greek. I've taken courses in it both in high school and in college, I've been under the tutliage of people like Dr. David Jeremiah and Rev. Paul Washer. I've taught classes and been a missionary in another country where I've aided in building a church. I am not unlearned... When I asked the question to gluadys - as when I ask many in this forum - it isn't necessarily to answer a question I have in my own mind, it may be to draw out of someone what they believe in a manner that is not the least bit offensive.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 8:26:18 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
There are many different literary genres found in the bible including history and allegory and poetry and law and exhortation and prophetic oracles and apocalyptic eschatology, wisdom literature, and various forms of fiction. After all, the bible is actually a little library, not a single unitary composition.
Absolutely! I agree with you 100% here!
quote:
So there is no one-size-fits-all approach one can take with the bible. It has a bit of everything in it. It would be just as wrong to take a "purely" allegorical approach as to take a "purely" historical approach.
OK, here's where we differ slightly. I know to say that one cannot take a singular approach to interpretation may sound good on the surface, but to not have a method or a starting point to interpretation may lead to interpreting the passage in a way that is easiest for the person to digest. I think we can at least agree that any one passage in Scripture has only one meaning - it can't mean different things to different people. I've always been taught to read scripture in light of the literal, grammatical, historical method... I hate giving names to things like this, but it basically means that we take the Bible in a literal sense, but understanding that there are other literary devices in use such as prose, metaphore, ect... and the use of such devices are always explained in the scriptures themselves. example: "The Kingdon of God is like..." and then we are to take the metaphore's meaning literally. For example, if I were out fishing and catching 50 pound Stripers, when I came back home and said that these fish "were as big as whales!" you'd automatically know that although they were BIG fish, they couldn't have been as big as a whale, but you would extract the truth from the simalie (spell?) or metaphore. We also have to understand that when there is no context for prose, it must have been historical narrative, such as the book of Jonah. No metaphore exists that scholars are aware of, and all context (Including words from Jesus) point to it being true historical narrative - a true story. Further, all literary devices (Historical narrative, prose, ect.) must be taken in their proper historical context.
I guess if I had to shorten that paragraph up, I'd have to say that the best interpreter of Scripture, is Scripture itself!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 9:18:31 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
There are many different literary genres found in the bible including history and allegory and poetry and law and exhortation and prophetic oracles and apocalyptic eschatology, wisdom literature, and various forms of fiction. After all, the bible is actually a little library, not a single unitary composition.
Absolutely! I agree with you 100% here!
quote:
So there is no one-size-fits-all approach one can take with the bible. It has a bit of everything in it. It would be just as wrong to take a "purely" allegorical approach as to take a "purely" historical approach.
OK, here's where we differ slightly. I know to say that one cannot take a singular approach to interpretation may sound good on the surface, but to not have a method or a starting point to interpretation may lead to interpreting the passage in a way that is easiest for the person to digest. I think we can at least agree that any one passage in Scripture has only one meaning - it can't mean different things to different people. I've always been taught to read scripture in light of the literal, grammatical, historical method... I hate giving names to things like this, but it basically means that we take the Bible in a literal sense, but understanding that there are other literary devices in use such as prose, metaphore, ect... and the use of such devices are always explained in the scriptures themselves. example: "The Kingdon of God is like..." and then we are to take the metaphore's meaning literally. For example, if I were out fishing and catching 50 pound Stripers, when I came back home and said that these fish "were as big as whales!" you'd automatically know that although they were BIG fish, they couldn't have been as big as a whale, but you would extract the truth from the simalie (spell?) or metaphore. We also have to understand that when there is no context for prose, it must have been historical narrative, such as the book of Jonah. No metaphore exists that scholars are aware of, and all context (Including words from Jesus) point to it being true historical narrative - a true story. Further, all literary devices (Historical narrative, prose, ect.) must be taken in their proper historical context.
I guess if I had to shorten that paragraph up, I'd have to say that the best interpreter of Scripture, is Scripture itself!
Couldn't have said it better myself. The one overarching truth to it all, is that the scriptures are true. If you look for a basis in truth, all the "genres" will not change that.
Even the account of the trees selecting for themselves a king, has merit in truth, though no tree actually became king.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 9:23:19 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
David Hume said: Metaphysically, you cannot make any statement on ultimate reality: if a statement is not mathematical or experimental then you must toss it into the flames, it is nothing.
The problem with that test for authenticity is that the statement itself fails it's own test...
When we think of the realm of the miraculous, we have to be very careful to understand how God has operated in history and how He operates now... For example, if you go to Armenia, you will see that they have celebrated for centuries the fact that Jonah came to preach to them - even this world itself is a miracle... Look to the many different things that occur every day that science will never be able to answer for us. C.S. Lewis once said that a "slow miracle is just as much a miracle as a fast miracle..." If a person has a problem with the miracle of creation as told in Genesis, their problem is not with creation, their problem is with the possibility of miracles at all...
Once you are able to admit to yourself that there are certain things that do occur that couldn't occur by any natural means (define that however you wish), then accepting the miraculous from the Bible becomes an easier task.
God's Word is the least bias way of interpreting God's will... It reads word for word the truths that God inspired men to pen into documents that God would preserve through the ages.
Man is a curious thing, and he is a very intelligent being, but intelligence and wisdom are two entirely different concepts, and when man chooses to follow his own intelligence instead of checking that against the wisdom of the ages, he falls into an ancient and deadly error... That of the first lie ever told - that through our knowledge of good and evil, we shall be like God. Man chooses to follow his own intellect down his own path that diverges from the revealed and plain Word of God. It led Cain to murder, and it leads modern man to monkeys.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 9:35:21 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
Testimony is only as good as the testifier. It really starts to fall down when you have conflicting accounts with no apparent or ready way to discern which accounts are true. Unless you have some other means to corroborate the accounts or make one more believable than the other, it is next to useless and only creates confusion. This is what makes it impossible for you to prove your faith is any more valid than a jew, or a muslim's etc etc. Because it relies on unverifiable testimony. Actually, In the case of YEC it is verifiable. We can verify if your claims about life and the creation of the Earth are true. We find that your interpretations of your testimony directly conflict with and are made impossible by reality... therefore we can be 100% certain that it is false.
< Message edited by drj11 -- 7/22/2008 9:46:36 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 9:47:28 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
Testimony is only as good as the testifier. It really starts to fall down when you have conflicting accounts with no apparent or ready way to discern which accounts are true. Unless you have some other means to corroborate the accounts or make one more believable than the other, it is next to useless and only creates confusion. This is what makes it impossible for you to prove your faith is any more valid than a jew, or a muslim's etc etc. Because it relies on unverifiable testimony. In the case of YEC, we can see that your interpreations of this testimony directly conflict with reality... therefore we can be 100% certain that it is false.
This will probably help you out a bit regarding your post...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXonhHYYHCM
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 9:56:15 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
Testimony is only as good as the testifier. It really starts to fall down when you have conflicting accounts with no apparent or ready way to discern which accounts are true. Unless you have some other means to corroborate the accounts or make one more believable than the other, it is next to useless and only creates confusion. This is what makes it impossible for you to prove your faith is any more valid than a jew, or a muslim's etc etc. Because it relies on unverifiable testimony. In the case of YEC, we can see that your interpreations of this testimony directly conflict with reality... therefore we can be 100% certain that it is false.
This will probably help you out a bit regarding your post...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXonhHYYHCM
More of the fallacious prophecy argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:04:54 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
More of the fallacious prophecy argument.
Fallacious? Riiiiiiiiiight... Well, all that tells me is that you're just repeating what others have told you. You haven't looked into it yourself. Investigate prophetic claims, see that they are real. It's not that hard... Usually, all you need is a Bible and an encyclopedia...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:09:13 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
(drj11) Testimony is only as good as the testifier. It really starts to fall down when you have conflicting accounts with no apparent or ready way to discern which accounts are true. Unless you have some other means to corroborate the accounts or make one more believable than the other, it is next to useless and only creates confusion. This is what makes it impossible for you to prove your faith is any more valid than a jew, or a muslim's etc etc. Because it relies on unverifiable testimony.
(theo) In THAT you are mistaken. If we were testifying about our eyewitness account of a traffic accident, you would be correct, because the perspective would be involved, as well as our individual experiences, and a whole bunch of other considerations. But, between Christian, Muslim, and Jew there is ONE denominator common to all; i.,e., the scriptures.
There cannot be three different true accounts of what scripture says. Three different account of what scripture MEANS, perhaps. But I do not employ telling what God "meant" to say. Only what he said.
If you and I testify only to what scripture says, we will most probably come to agreement. It is when one of us attempts to apply what God "meant to say" that it gets testy. Just as in a jury trial, as long as the witnesses testify to exactly and precisely what was said, there will be no problem for the jury. Only when tesimony begins to vary, will the jury begin to falter in decision making.
quote:
(drj11) Actually, In the case of YEC it is verifiable. We can verify if your claims about life and the creation of the Earth are true. We find that your interpretations of your testimony directly conflict with and are made impossible by reality... therefore we can be 100% certain that it is false.
(theo) In the case of the Muslim, the Christian, and the Jew's testimony about what scripture says, is also verifiability. Claims about what scripture says can be verified. And manyof the prophecies of scripture are verified in historical accounts.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:14:22 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7456
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is a pretty interesting question actually.
And I am glad it is being asked!
Basically, if scientists can gather evidence for something, and use that evidence to explain and predict that something, then that something is natural, and within the scope of science.
For example, if scientists discover evidence for God, and they can use this evidence to explain and predict God, then God will be classified as natural.
If the cuase of the big bang is discovered, and evidence for that thing gathered, and models and theories built based on that evidence that can then be used to predict it, then the cause of the big bang will be classified as natural.
Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
It is not enough for something to have a pattern, or for it to follow certain laws. There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
So supernatural in your estimation is "something we don't have evidence for"?
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:21:47 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
More of the fallacious prophecy argument.
Fallacious? Riiiiiiiiiight... Well, all that tells me is that you're just repeating what others have told you. You haven't looked into it yourself. Investigate prophetic claims, see that they are real. It's not that hard... Usually, all you need is a Bible and an encyclopedia...
A book that predicts what is going to happen in its later chapters is not prophetic. It has a good story arc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:27:35 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
More of the fallacious prophecy argument.
Fallacious? Riiiiiiiiiight... Well, all that tells me is that you're just repeating what others have told you. You haven't looked into it yourself. Investigate prophetic claims, see that they are real. It's not that hard... Usually, all you need is a Bible and an encyclopedia...
A book that predicts what is going to happen in its later chapters is not prophetic. It has a good story arc.
Ah!!! But what about a book that predicts what is going to happen in ANOTHER book's later chapters? And this presupposes there is no possibility of colusion between authors. Unless you are willing to concede God is in fact the author of both books under consideration???
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:31:38 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
More of the fallacious prophecy argument.
Fallacious? Riiiiiiiiiight... Well, all that tells me is that you're just repeating what others have told you. You haven't looked into it yourself. Investigate prophetic claims, see that they are real. It's not that hard... Usually, all you need is a Bible and an encyclopedia...
A book that predicts what is going to happen in its later chapters is not prophetic. It has a good story arc.
Ah!!! But what about a book that predicts what is going to happen in ANOTHER book's later chapters? And this presupposes there is no possibility of colusion between authors. Unless you are willing to concede God is in fact the author of both books under consideration???
The author of the later book read the first book, or heard unreliable testimony from others who said the events of the first book came true.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:41:49 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
The author of the later book read the first book, or heard unreliable testimony from others who said the events of the first book came true.
The Bible is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years... In order for your statement to be true, then Jesus would have had to choose where He would be born... Another example, Jesus predicted that the temple of JErusalem would be torn down so that not one stone would be left upon another. In 70 A.D. that very thing happened according to His word. The 70 Weeks prophecy in Daniel 9 predicts to the day when Jesus entered into the city of Jerusalem and describes His soon death and resurrection. (Do you want me to continue giving examples? There are dozens of prophecies about Jesus the Christ alone, and ALL of them were fulfilled...) Clearly you have done no research into this... You explaining away Bible prophecy like that would be like me (a man) trying to explain what birth pains feel like.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:43:08 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: drj11
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
More of the fallacious prophecy argument.
Fallacious? Riiiiiiiiiight... Well, all that tells me is that you're just repeating what others have told you. You haven't looked into it yourself. Investigate prophetic claims, see that they are real. It's not that hard... Usually, all you need is a Bible and an encyclopedia...
A book that predicts what is going to happen in its later chapters is not prophetic. It has a good story arc.
Ah!!! But what about a book that predicts what is going to happen in ANOTHER book's later chapters? And this presupposes there is no possibility of colusion between authors. Unless you are willing to concede God is in fact the author of both books under consideration???
The author of the later book read the first book, or heard unreliable testimony from others who said the events of the first book came true.
I apologize. I didn't realize we were discussing fiction here. I had assumed we were dealing with reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:44:33 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
I apologize. I didn't realize we were disucssing fiction here. I had assumed we were dealing with reality.
Hey.. you said it not me 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:47:59 AM
|
|
|
drj11
Posts: 632
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
The Bible is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of about 1500 years...
Exactly! One work built right off of the other. If people a few hundred years in the future thought Batman was a real human being, how would they pick and choose what comic books and/or movies accurately tell you about his life? They would pick the most self-consistent versions, and throw out the rest. That is exactly what happened with the gospels.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 10:52:19 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
OK, here's where we differ slightly. I know to say that one cannot take a singular approach to interpretation may sound good on the surface, but to not have a method or a starting point to interpretation may lead to interpreting the passage in a way that is easiest for the person to digest.
Oh, I am not implying "no starting point". The starting point is to determine what sort of literature we are dealing with in any particular case. And this is not something to be decided on a whim or through personal preference. There are rules and techniques to be applied in the study of literature as in any academic pursuit. The problem is generally that neither theologians nor scientists have much academic background in literature, much less the general populace. Many think that because they can read a newspaper or a poem or a novel, they "know" literature. But there is much more to understanding literature than in being able to read.
quote:
I think we can at least agree that any one passage in Scripture has only one meaning - it can't mean different things to different people.
I disagree with the first half of this statement, but I do agree with the second. There is no reason why a passage of scripture should be limited to one meaning. And in fact, few interpreters of scripture would assign only one meaning to many passages of scripture. When Jesus' disciples asked him to interpret his parables they indicated their understanding that the straightforward meaning of the story was not the only meaning. They wanted to know what else it meant. And Jesus responded by giving them allegorical interpretations of the parables. So the parable of the Sower has at least two meanings: the literal meaning of a farmer sowing seed and the allegorical meaning of the Son of Man sowing the Word of God.
So there is nothing wrong with interpreters offering several meanings for a passage---but all meanings should derive from the text. And different people should be able to agree that the suggested meanings are a fair rendering of the text.
quote:
I've always been taught to read scripture in light of the literal, grammatical, historical method...
And I would wonder why you were taught such a limiting approach. Especially when you say later that scripture is its own best interpreter. When we look at how NT writers interpreted the OT they virtually never interpreted it literally. They were much more likely to use allegory and typology.
I find adherence to this hermeneutic to be theologically driven rather than based on sound principles of literary criticism. I would say one must first understand the text, then discover the theological meaning. The literalistic approach reverses that: first adopt this theology, then reject any meaning of the text, no matter how well supported by literary principles, that disagrees with this theology.
I am not surprised that theologians give priority to theology, but it is not to my mind the best way to begin studying the biblical text. I would love to see budding theologians given a better grounding in literary criticism in order to improve their interpretations of the bible.
Beginning with a settled theology creates the same sort of problem in biblical interpretation as beginning with a conclusion does in science. One cherry-picks "evidence" that agrees with the prior conclusion while ignoring what conflicts or points in other directions.
quote:
I hate giving names to things like this, but it basically means that we take the Bible in a literal sense,
One of the problems we get into in discussion like these is a sort of discursive shorthand like opposing "literal" and "allegorical" or "metaphorical" or any other sort of figurative meaning. These are not really an "either...or" choice, but rather a "both...and" choice. Every text has a literal meaning and the beginning of a literary approach is always the literal meaning of the text. There are very few texts that have only a literal meaning. The most realistic of texts often include metaphors and images that are not meant to be understood literally---like describing your big fish as "whales" Science, which tries to describe nature as realistically as possible, is still replete with such images. "Big bang" is a metaphor, not an event. (There was an event which this metaphor alludes to--but the name is a metaphor, not the event itself.) Gravitational "attraction" is another metaphor.
So, a first principle of a literary approach is that the literal meaning is never to be ignored. But many texts, especially--but by no means only--poetry, have layers of meaning added to the literal meaning, and it is often in these meanings that the real intent of the author resides. The author is intentionally deepening the literal meaning with various layers of allusion, imagery, lietmotifs, allegory, simile, parable, etc. Refusing to deal with these additional layers of meaning by insisting on the priority of the literal meaning would in such instances be a misinterpretation. The important meaning is not the literal meaning, but the figurative sense the author is pointing to.
Nor should we see figurative meaning only as "raisins" in a loaf of a basically "literal" account---a metaphor appearing in the midst of basically descriptive prose. Sometimes it is the other way around: the whole genre is basically non-literal with apparently literal descriptive narrative set in an overall imaginative frame. An simple biblical example would be Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones. His language is quite plain and simple as it describes the bones reconnecting into skeletons, being covered with flesh and animated by breath. You don't find "figures of speech" in the description, no poetic frills. Yet we know this literal description is not about a historical event. The event as a whole is an image even though a plain, unadorned simple descriptive language is used throughout. A more controversial example would be the Garden of Eden story.
quote:
We also have to understand that when there is no context for prose, it must have been historical narrative,
Why? Did your teachers ever give you a reason for this assumption? To me, lack of context would indicate the reverse. A historical narrative should have a historical context, preferably one that is documented outside of the narrative itself. A narrative without obvious historical connections has little claim to being history.
quote:
No metaphore exists that scholars are aware of, and all context (Including words from Jesus) point to it being true historical narrative - a true story.
This suggests that only history tells true stories--a highly dubious proposition of modernity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/22/2008 11:25:46 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Exactly! One work built right off of the other. If people a few hundred years in the future thought Batman was a real human being, how would they pick and choose what comic books and/or movies accurately tell you about his life? They would pick the most self-consistent versions, and throw out the rest. That is exactly what happened with the gospels.
It sounds to me like you've bought into the Dan Brown type of lies... Are you aware that there never was a meeting to determine what books should be included in the Bible and what ones not to be? The most a council ever did was to ratify the books that were already in existence... Actually, did you know that at the time of the writing of the Gospels, Peter refers to the "Scriptures" that were in existence... Actually, the writers of the New Testament had at their disposal ALL of what we now call the Old Testament - to them it was simply: "The Scriptures." How could they choose what books to sort through that supported their stories when the books were all there, already written, and everybody knew about them? Jesus actually spent most of His ministry showing the Jews (who KNEW their Scripture) that He was the fulfillment of their scriptures - they only didn't believe Him, not because He didn't fulfill the Scriptures, but that He didn't fit the "type" that they were expecting... They were expecting a conquering king, not a suffering servant.
I say again, you really should do some research before you go off half-cocked thinking you are correct on issues you know nothing about, friend.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
