Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
O, come on! Really? Based on science. Of course at this point I don't expect you to accept that so just stick with what seems best to you.
Do you agree or disagree with Gadamer on this?
Over my head now.
You dare!
Sometimes I am not sure what we even mean by "inspired". Certainly there are many diverse understandings of that term.
The "nature" of what we are reading...I think that is part of what makes it so fascinating...I guess we hope to discover that nature.
I think so also. That was also Tracy on Analogical Imagination, I think.
Do I agree with Gadamer? On a general level, I do, even if I may not appropriate every single nuance of his own theoretical position. I mean, there's a reason I try to invest myself in the field of Biblical Hermeneutics, with one strand of influence in my interpretive outlook coming from the Philosophical Hermeneuticists.
Yes, I do.
Indeed, there are diverse understandings of that term.
Yes, I agree. That is where the Philosophy of History comes in as an additional field of consideration to Hermeneutics.
I think you're one of the first Christians I've ever met who has said this. I think there's more to the O.T. and even to the book of Revelation than what you've yet far discovered for yourself. But, those are discussions for another day perhaps.
There is a lot of archeology starting to surface today because the Euphrates river is starting to dry up. We can study the evidence for ourself, we do not have to allow others to do that for us. Science and the Bible line up and agree with each other. For example Genesis 4:22."Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron."
So do you view Jesus saying "Suffer ye thus far" in Gethsemane, or the Psalmist saying:
I think even that would turn into a polemic. These sources v. those sources., going nowhere.
As an academically minded person myself, I usually insist otherwise. Without invoking evidences and scholarly interpretive measures from various schools, then there's no real need for a discussion beyond maybe one or two posts. At least, not for me. Sorry, Akita. I'm going to have to disagree on this point, especially on discussions pertaining to the historiographical nature of the Bible. The spiritual implications involved in all of this aren't merely reducible to a discussion of personal preferences about one's own spirituality.
People need to learn to think better. That's why I have a degree in Education and another in Philosophy; learning better shouldn't be optional, and if we're to honor God with our minds, which we are to do, then thinking better rather than settling in a comfortable position of personal preference also isn't an option.
Sure. People need to start from where they are and with what they can do, but those social contexts shouldn't be the litmus test or qualifier for what any one person should be ethically encouraged to do with their minds. People shouldn't be allowed to slump into their own solipsism.
And that can be a problem, because the jury is still out on that, and Wellhausen and ilk can be critically taken to task, and should be. And if it turns out that what Wellhausen and later company have asserted has some partial truth, then that can be kept. But we don't want to just accept modern theory simply because that is what has been taught.
I understand your concern about how some people, even some Christians, insist and push a simplistic hermeneutic. But even so, citing that they have a deficient sensibility in their praxis doesn't default to justifying our own hermeneutic. No, we all have to do some hard work with the Bible.
Thanks for those sources, Philo. You gave me a lot to think about. I like the fact that my assumptions may be WRONG. or at least in need of review and revision. That is exciting. You probably noticed that I can be pretty arrogant at times (unconsciously of course
).
You're welcome. If anything, I'm trying to be the type of brotherly interlocuter you were asking for.
I think I can go with the idea that we all are always in need of some 'review and revision' rather simply being wrong on all counts. Those of us who are Christians should realize the multiple conceptual spaces in which we have hermeneutical overlay and commonality, and not merely focus on those points upon which we differ.
I don't think you're arrogant in the least. I don't expect anyone, including you, to just woof down and digest anything I say simply because I say so. If anything, I appreciate the fact that you've been to seminary and that you're willing to consider----as Gadamer and others after him would say----new "horizons" of perspective.That is exciting. You probably noticed that I can be pretty arrogant at times (unconsciously of course
Yes, you're right. It is "both/and." In fact, it's essentially a merging of conceptual "horizons." The trick here in going beyond not just Derrida, but even Gadamer (while still keeping Gademer usefully in tow) is to engage the personal, hermeneutical realization that to derive personal meaning in the here and now as we read the Bible is a complex undertaking--------that is, this is the trick and challenge involved if we are able to apply it and if we want to do it well and not merely "deconstruct" the biblical text for our own personal use.
And what a pleasant surprise!You're welcome. If anything, I'm trying to be the type of brotherly interlocuter you were asking for.
In seminary all we got was the Deuteronomistic historian. None of this hermeneutics stuff. I might have heard mention of Ricœur but not Gadamer nor Derrida. Did I mention that I met David Tracy? He was at University of Chicago and had Mass at the Newman Center.
"Deconstruct the biblical text for our own personal use", a universal temptation. "merging of conceptual horizons"" Oh, is that what that means?. I tell you. I am guessing at what these guys mean half the time. Especailly Paul Ricœur.
Cool.
I printed it out and am eager to get to it. Thanks.
What a rich post, Rose-bud. I am going to have to print it out and read it well. Thank you.Hey Akita
I've been following along since my last post. I believe I've shared this before, a post-exilic date does not necessarily mean it cannot be rooted in historical truth. (For example just because my great great grand-children write my biography doesn't necessarily mean that what they write about me would necessarily be a lie, as opposed to my grandchildren. Of course the reason for writing could be different and how they choose to share that information could impact how it's viewed as well). So either ealier or later dates could be argued, which would not necessarily impact the historical truth. Which I think 2Philo has been pointing out.
On further elaboration of what you meant in your OP, which you shared later. I still viewed it as your request/dare to posters to search for different ways of reading the text, not necessarily throwing out the historical, but holding it in tension with others. (I could have been misunderstanding this).
Your further elaboration had me crossing the bridge from ancient to modern, where I understood it as reminiscent of ministry in refugee camps or homeless shelters, where elements of exile are forefront. Could the text resonate with those enduring these circumstances ? (I do ministry with the homeless). People from different walks of life, and for different reasons are suffering and displaced. Some are encountering this situation due to their own disobedience, where others are victims of unjust circumstances, or fleeing violent situations.
The stories are complex and alot more nuanced than we care to admit. Its tempting to assume a single experience applies universally, but the biblical motif of exile/displacement speaks uniquely to each situation. For some exile is because of disobedience like Adam and Eve and Israel as per your OP. For others exile is due to no fault of their own, framed within a larger context, like Joseph also an exile separated from home also framed within a larger context, no fault of his own.
These varying situations does raise fundamental questions, Who is God, where is God and what does my situation tell me about who this God is. If He reveals Himself in His Word, where is He?. Is He just?? Or perhaps like Hagar who is "exiled" twice, her own decision to run from an abusive situation where she is both victim and perpetrator, and then again exiled for the sake of the Promise.
In a sense, the biblical stories resonates with our lived experiences. Its much like the view of Nancy Eiland. "Encountering the disabled God", She found solace in the Scriptures portrayal of what she termed as the "disabled" God, very provocative and unheard of.
But for her, it meant that Christ shared in her suffering. This could also be viewed as allowing the text to interpret me. I.e reading the text with the understanding that it is a two way mirror, revealing who He is, and who we are. It reveals how we measure against the standard of Christ. But also as in Nancy case and ours, how we perceive the Word, discovering how Christ shares in our humanity.
Everyone has a different reference point. And although the author-intent is discovered by historical-grammatical methods of interpretation. The principles in the text is discovered for our application. But I do believe a reader-response reading is beneficial especially when we consider the complexity of human experience and a desire to search for what God says about it.
I also find that the personal practice of divina lectio in a sense falls within this category. Employing both methods is what brings about the most value imo.
In addition, we should be aware of our own bias (although this self-awareness is itself subjective).
For example I can easily read certain passages as liberating, because of my history, one lens through which I view Scripture. Its easier for me to perceive how Christ approaches those less fortunate, those oppressed. But I have to balance it with another view or another perspective, as much as he came for the oppressed, he also came for the oppressor. For both the less fortunate and the fortunate.
For as much as we think we are only the victim, we are also the perpetrator.
What I further, understand what you meant by your OP and a different hermeneutic is being able to discern that reference point and redirect it to Christ.
Biblical narratives may be able to resonate with varied circumstances and situations. Therefore be a means of offering hope. So yes not either/or but both/and.
Thanks for the thread. Apologies for the long post, it had me thinking.
Science does NOT make the Bible look bad. Science and the Bible are in 100% agreement. There are no contradictions. People do not understand their Bible or they do not understand Science if they think there is a conflict. They will get it all straightened out when they get to heaven.
