If you say so. To me, hermeneutics is the art of looking at what is plainly written and explaining why it doesn't say what it clearly says. I don't do that.
When you say, "
to me, hermeneutics is the art ...," do you mean this subjectively or objectively? It sounds like you're saying this in "plane jane" subjective terms rather than attempting to do so in some kind of objective terms since you don't have any citation for your definition. Without that, then the rest of us can't tell for sure if you're actually understanding what results most often in your own, individual act of reading the bible (i.e. we each either approach something that results in
Exegesis OR we each devolve, in an uneducated pattern, into doing
Eisegesis, the latter of which is somewhat solipsistic).
According to scholar Jeanine K. Brown, Hermeneutics is:
...the study OF the act of interpretation. In the realm of theory, the term is used to refer to the discipline that analyzes interpretation [any interpretation, really], specifically, how texts communicate, how meaning is derived from texts and/or their authors, and what it is that people do when they interpret a text. (p. 20)
According another scholar, Jens Zimmermann, hermeneutics is simply another, more elaborate word FOR for both the act of human interpretation and the study of human interpretation itself:
Interpretation occurs in many fields of study and also in day-to-day life. We interpret plays, novels, abstract art, music and movies, employment contracts, the law, the Bible, the Quran, and other sacred texts: but we also interpret the actions of our friends and enemies, or try to figure out what a job termination means in the context of our life story. How and why do we interpret? The goal of interpretation is to make sense of a text or situation, to understand what they mean. (p. 1)
Our human acts of interpretration, of course, include our reading and study of what we think we're doing cognitively when we read and quote the Holy Bible. So, as you might be able to see, and I think you can (unless you may have Aspergers, and you haven't up until this point indicated that you do)
this involves second-order thinking. Thus, while it is possible for a person to read and interpret without being conscious of 'how' he/she is interpreting, to continue to do so could more often result in Eisegesis (and some level of solipsism) than it would in providing him/her Exegesis of the text or of the communicative situation being engaged.
References
Brown, Jeannine K. (2007).
Introducing Biblical Hermeneutics: Scripture as Communication. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Zimmermann, Jens. (2015).
Hermeneutics: A Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
You do realize that randomly dropping and slopping--in singular fashion--a verse from the bible without explaining the context doesn't really qualify as a useful application of the verse you've apparently lifted--in this case--from Paul the Apostle, who in turn quoted it from the Old Testament
, right? Gee wiz, NV, I know you can do better than rely on a 'name it and claim it' use of the Bible; you can do better than Kenneth Copeland who does that very thing.
Great job at using many words to say nothing at all.
I'm fairly sure that my words have meaning even if you've unfortunately not grasped my intent to convey that meaning. Fortunately, I'm tempted to go with giving you a big benefit of the doubt since I think you can learn to increase your reading comprehension skills and become a better reader--through learning Hermeneutics, of course!
Not surprised. The Bible clearly says that you should, so I would anticipate that you would do the opposite and then justify yourself, while also maintaining that Christ is your lord.
"For what have I to do with judging them that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Put away the wicked man from among yourselves."
I think you misunderstood what "I" meant by my use of the term 'judge.' All I meant was that I won't judge whether or not Kenneth Copeland is saved or not; I didn't say that I wouldn't critically evaluate either his reading skills, his apologetic skills, or his actual understanding of Christianity, especially as he related to the reporter in the OP video some of his buying habits in relation to ... $$$ JETS.
So,
IF you misunderstood my use of the term 'judge', then since unlike Paul the Apostle I'm still alive and kicking, and since I'm the author of the statement, "I won't judge him," it's probably best as a part of your hermeneutical study of what I've said [since hermeneutics applies to all human communication on not just when we might read the bible] for you to gain some clarification about what I said by asking me what I meant more fully....before jumping to conclusions.
But now you're just being subjective. If we aren't going plainly with what is written on the page, then it's your interpretation against his. The entire point of getting it in writing is to do away with such bickering. Hermeneutics undermines the entire purpose of the Bible.
No, it's really not solely an instance of 'my interpretation' against his. Being that not all interpretations are built the same, we can say that some of them, even if not mine, end up expressing better explanations about original meanings because they are better networked in connecting various cultural, historical, linguistic, literary, epistemic, perceptual and even aesthetic details.
I'm pretty sure that Kenneth Copeland's attempt at reading the bible is simplistic in nature, or it remains an example of a kind of "Name It and Claim It" reading when he tries to use it for his own attempt at Apologetics.
NV, you're forgetting who you're talking to. That's not how we eliminate bias in science. Stick to your math, my man! Stick to your math!
