| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
21st February 2008, 01:23 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
51     
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | You sure like playing loosely with words and assigning all sorts of meaning where none was made. I make a statement "There is no doubt about what God says" referring to the actual words of God in the Bible and you run with that and then make this statement: Originally Posted by Vance Vossler, you say this, and then you agree that anyone who assigns infallibility to their interpretation has serious pride issues? Do you really not see the contradiction in your own position here?
No where was an interpretation by me ever discussed, you introduce it and then proceed to assume things from which to make your assertions.
After I provide an explanation you then go on to say: Originally Posted by Vance  I am simply addressing what you, yourself, say about your interpretation. You seem to think that if you just take the "plain reading", you are not interpreting. This, of course, is ridiculous, since the "plain reading" depends on your culture, education, point in history, etc. Do you mean YOUR plain reading in 2008, or the plain reading in 1000 BC? I have already shown elsewhere that the ancient near east cultures would have read the early Genesis texts incredibly different than you do, and would think your "plain reading" was not "plain" at all.
It appears to me it is you who seems bent on seeing things in a certain way. Just because my signature says some things you don't agree with you then take it upon yourself to read into it and ascertain how I truly use it and apply it to my own interpretation. If this is your approach to Bible interpretation then I suggest you might be the one who needs to reevaluate how you come to the conclusions that you do.
I certainly hope you are not advocating that everyone who reads Scripture must first take into account how the ANE first read it, then look at how our culture, my own personal education and viewpoint might be different from theirs and apply that to my interpretation. In those rare instances where seriously questions do arise that can be helpful, but the thing is God's Word transcends time and culture, it's meaning stands true through it all. It would appear from what you're saying that you are advocating an approach to Scripture that God never told us to follow and as such it is potentially a very dangerous one.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
21st February 2008, 01:33 PM
| | Senior Member
 
| | Join Date: 9th February 2008
Posts: 672
Blessings: 91,302
Reps: 5,708 (power: 10) | | Originally Posted by vossler You sure like playing loosely with words and assigning all sorts of meaning where none was made. I make a statement "There is no doubt about what God says" referring to the actual words of God in the Bible and you run with that and then make this statement:
No where was an interpretation by me ever discussed, you introduce it and then proceed to assume things from which to make your assertions.
After I provide an explanation you then go on to say:
It appears to me it is you who seems bent on seeing things in a certain way. Just because my signature says some things you don't agree with you then take it upon yourself to read into it and ascertain how I truly use it and apply it to my own interpretation. If this is your approach to Bible interpretation then I suggest you might be the one who needs to reevaluate how you come to the conclusions that you do.
I certainly hope you are not advocating that everyone who reads Scripture must first take into account how the ANE first read it, then look at how our culture, my own personal education and viewpoint might be different from theirs and apply that to my interpretation. In those rare instances where seriously questions do arise that can be helpful, but the thing is God's Word transcends time and culture, it's meaning stands true through it all. It would appear from what you're saying that you are advocating an approach to Scripture that God never told us to follow and as such it is potentially a very dangerous one.
Hmm, I don't mean to butt in, but what approach to interpreting scripture DID God tell us to follow? |
21st February 2008, 01:35 PM
|  | Legend
   
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by vossler I certainly hope you are not advocating that everyone who reads Scripture must first take into account how the ANE first read it, then look at how our culture, my own personal education and viewpoint might be different from theirs and apply that to my interpretation.
That is exactly what I would advocate. I would hold any interpretation that does not look at how the original author and audience would understand the text to be irresponsible. In those rare instances where seriously questions do arise that can be helpful, but the thing is God's Word transcends time and culture, it's meaning stands true through it all.
I agree. The meaning transcends time and culture and stands true through it all.
But the "plain text" does not.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
21st February 2008, 01:43 PM
|  | Contributor
46 
| | Join Date: 16th July 2003
Posts: 6,653
Blessings: 100,034
Reps: 18,396 (power: 33) | | | What Gluadys just said. Yes, of course, we should follow the authorial-intent hermeneutic as our first choice, even Augustine recognized that and advocated it. The actual message from God comes through no matter what, I agree on that entirely. And, not surprisingly, the actual message of Genesis 1 and 2 is something that the YEC, OEC and the TE can all agree upon. Where the YEC gets it wrong is attaching all kinds of other, literalistic meanings to the text that were not really intended by the original human author, like the idea of God creating in six literal days. If the original author or readers would not have read it that way, why should we?
And, I was not basing my comments on your signature quote at all, but what you had posted in this very thread. You must recognize that you ARE interpreting Scripture the minute you pick it up and read it.
__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
|
21st February 2008, 03:13 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
 | | Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,786 My Mood 
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889) | | Originally Posted by anonymous1515 Hmm, I don't mean to butt in, but what approach to interpreting scripture DID God tell us to follow? Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Neither of the above would meet the modern standard for proving that literal surface text should be the standard. But neither is there satisfactory guidance for the contrary within the text. For the literalist, the foregoing verses are self evident. For those who are not, I would suggest that they may not be convincing (how could anything be convincing, but a Monty Python like appearance out of the clouds?) but they would seem sufficient to cause great concern about whether we dismiss literalism easily or summarily.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; |
21st February 2008, 03:35 PM
| | Contributor
46
| | Join Date: 16th July 2003
Posts: 6,653
Blessings: 100,034
Reps: 18,396 (power: 33) | | Originally Posted by busterdog Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Neither of the above would meet the modern standard for proving that literal surface text should be the standard. But neither is there satisfactory guidance for the contrary within the text. For the literalist, the foregoing verses are self evident. For those who are not, I would suggest that they may not be convincing (how could anything be convincing, but a Monty Python like appearance out of the clouds?) but they would seem sufficient to cause great concern about whether we dismiss literalism easily or summarily.
But again, there is question-begging for what the "surface" text is, and whether that is "literal". Today, we associate "plain" and "surface understanding" with literalism. But even we do not always apply this, giving us a glimpse into how another culture may view it. When we read Revelation, is our first instinct to read it as strictly literal? Of course not, we automatically jump straight to "dragon is figurative for something else", rather than "dragon means dragon". We don't hesitate to do this because even our modern mindset, as strictly literal as we are predisposed to like our "truth", has this basic understanding that not all truths, or even descriptions of events, must be presented using strictly literal language.
And, the idea of "markers" or indicators in the text that something should be read figuratively does not really work either, as I have shown with my "breathed" discussion, where even the literalist will not read 2:7 as meaning that God came down and took human form in order to have human lungs in order to have literal breath. We understand immediately that this is a figurative, evocative and powerful way of describing something that happened, but NOT literal "breathing". It is describing a literal, historical event, but using figurative and symbolic language.
The point is that there is no reason, when reviewing ancient texts, to start with literal historical narrative as the default literary genre. In fact, it should be WAY down on the list of possible genres when discussing these types of accounts by an ANE culture.
__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
|
21st February 2008, 05:11 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by anonymous1515 Hmm, I don't mean to butt in, but what approach to interpreting scripture DID God tell us to follow?
He didn't spell any method out but I like to use this as a guide:
The Westminster Confession I, 9 states:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
I truly believe this is an accurate and well thought out method to making sure our interpretation of Scripture is complete.
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
21st February 2008, 05:18 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by gluadys That is exactly what I would advocate. I would hold any interpretation that does not look at how the original author and audience would understand the text to be irresponsible.
On the surface that sounds all well and good. However, all that does is give license to each of us coming up with our own interpretation based upon what we saw or understood the original author and audience understood. Most things in the Bible are hardly that complex. Originally Posted by gluadys I agree. The meaning transcends time and culture and stands true through it all.
But the "plain text" does not.
Interesting...so the meaning transcends but the plain text doesn't. This steps right into what I'm constantly afraid of, am I taking the plain text and twisting it to conform with my own view of history? I pray not! 
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." |
21st February 2008, 05:24 PM
| | Contributor
46
| | Join Date: 16th July 2003
Posts: 6,653
Blessings: 100,034
Reps: 18,396 (power: 33) | | Originally Posted by vossler He didn't spell any method out but I like to use this as a guide:
The Westminster Confession I, 9 states:
"The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."
I truly believe this is an accurate and well thought out method to making sure our interpretation of Scripture is complete.
Yes, when there is another Scripture which actually addresses the same subject, it can be enlightening. But, this will not always be the case. Here is how Augustine suggested we go about it: Augustine shows the proper humility about this interpretive process that we all can learn from, and he acknowledges that the writing of Genesis was NOT done with a meaning that was "obvious" or "plain". but instead was "obscure":
"40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. . . ."
Next, in Chapter 21 of his analysis of Genesis, he states that if the scientist presents reliable evidence about nature, then we can be assured that it fits with what Scripture really says:
"When they [the unbeliever] are able, from reliable evidence, to prove some fact of physical science, we shall show that it is not contrary to our Scripture."
And I think this is an essential point. We, as Christians, should not DENY the evidence when it is reliable, we should instead show them how that it fits with Scripture, lest they attempt to use their evidence to disprove Scripture. Too often our knee-jerk reaction is “that is contrary to Scripture”, when we really mean “that is contrary to how I have always read Scripture”. Maybe instead, we should consider asking “if that WAS correct, knowing that Scripture is also correct, how could the two work together?” St. Augustine also discusses the other three factors to consider in interpretation: 1) the author's intent, 2) whether it is consistent with Scripture and faith, and 3) if these other two are not possible to determine, one that our faith demands.
"When we read the inspired books in the light of this wide variety of true doctrines which are drawn from a few words and founded on the firm basis of Catholic belief, let us choose that one which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. But if this is not clear, then at least we should choose an interpretation in keeping with the context of Scripture and in harmony with our faith. But if the meaning cannot be studied and judged by the context of Scripture, at least we should choose only that which our faith demands."
There are a couple of very important truths expounded here.
First, he acknowledges that often a wide variety of possible and arguable doctrines can come from a given text. This is contrary to the idea that the true meaning is always "obvious" or "plain".
Second, it is not always clear what the author intended!
Third, it may not even be possible to determine the meaning from the context of Scripture itself. This, then, is pointing to the fact that sometimes it is necessary to consider evidence and argument outside the Scripture.
Lastly, among competing interpretation, we should choose the one our faith demands. So, for me, if I find the evidence against a literally historical reading of Genesis such that my faith demands a figurative reading, and it does not contradict the other factors, that is the one I must follow.
Augustine also warns against the serious danger of reading a text literally that was meant to be read non-literally:
"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).
__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.
|
21st February 2008, 05:26 PM
| | Senior Veteran
51
| | Join Date: 20th July 2004 Location: Wichita Falls, TX
Posts: 2,754
Blessings: 67,062
Reps: 17,483,847 (power: 17,493) | | Originally Posted by Vance Where the YEC gets it wrong is attaching all kinds of other, literalistic meanings to the text that were not really intended by the original human author, like the idea of God creating in six literal days. If the original author or readers would not have read it that way, why should we?
I'm amazed that you know Moses never intended Genesis to convey the idea of six literal days. I myself could never be so bold as to claim something contrary to the text without some very compelling evidence. Originally Posted by Vance And, I was not basing my comments on your signature quote at all, but what you had posted in this very thread.
Given that I hadn't really posted anything definitive I'm surprised at how your claim could be made. 
__________________
David Cooper: "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense;therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise." | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
