Book Of Enoch And The Flat-earth

Ophiolite said:

Perhaps that is the way you do it. I know of at least one person on the planet who does not do it that way. Perhaps there are others. Your absolute assumption it flawed.

Click to expand...

Pehaps that answers why there is much comprehension issues out there.

Hentenza said:

Pehaps that answers why there is much comprehension issues out there.

Click to expand...

I take note of the fact that you apparently believe that comprehension can be enhanced by deciding how to interpret words before reading them. Good luck with that.

Ophiolite said:

I take note of the fact that you apparently believe that comprehension can be enhanced by deciding how to interpret words before reading them. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

That’s not what I said. See comprehension. How can you possibly understand a word if you did not read it first?

Hentenza said:

That’s not what I said. See comprehension. How can you possibly understand a word if you did not read it first?

Click to expand...

This is not rocket science. If you approach a book, article, or any written medium with the pre-determined view that it is literal, or not literal; fiction, or non-fiction; theological, or secular; myth, or factual; or any other dichotomy, or suite of dichotomies, then your interpretation of what it means is likely to be flawed.
To further clarify: I did not say not too read it first, I said - I thought clearly - that one should read it without prejudging the category. You have asserted that you do and implied that everyone else does. (Of course, I may have misinterpreted your words, but they seemed to be an attempt to convery a factual truth, one which I consider to be mistaken.)

Ophiolite said:

This is not rocket science. If you approach a book, article, or any written medium with the pre-determined view that it is literal, or not literal; fiction, or non-fiction; theological, or secular; myth, or factual; or any other dichotomy, or suite of dichotomies, then your interpretation of what it means is likely to be flawed.
To further clarify: I did not say not too read it first, I said - I thought clearly - that one should read it without prejudging the category. You have asserted that you do and implied that everyone else does. (Of course, I may have misinterpreted your words, but they seemed to be an attempt to convery a factual truth, one which I consider to be mistaken.)

Click to expand...

My friend this is exactly what I said. The words should FIRST be read literally and then interpreted.

Hentenza said:

My friend this is exactly what I said. The words should FIRST be read literally and then interpreted.

Click to expand...

I think we can agree I am not your friend.
No. That is not at all what I am saying. I say the words should FIRST be read, then it should be decided whether or not they are literal, fictional, mythical, lies, rhetoric, etc., etc. You insist upon a literal reading. I consider that to be a foolish approach.

Ophiolite said:

I think we can agree I am not your friend.

Click to expand...

I guess if we can’t have a friendly, civil conversation then there is very little point in continuing. Have a nice day.

Ophiolite said:

I think we can agree I am not your friend.
No. That is not at all what I am saying. I say the words should FIRST be read, then it should be decided whether or not they are literal, fictional, mythical, lies, rhetoric, etc., etc. You insist upon a literal reading. I consider that to be a foolish approach.

Click to expand...

I think we're struggling with semantics.

I know what it is to literally read the word "the". I don't know what it means to read it literally, objectively, subjectively, metaphorically, or allegorically.

When we read "Noah built an ark", or "Huck stole a raft", or "Tom went up to the house", we can begin to assess meaning.

(I'll reassert that the words objective and subjective are useless for this discussion. Let's just understanding what and how we understand what the author wrote.)

In the three sentences above, every one can/could agree that the sentences are to be read literally. That is, a person named Noah put some effort into transforming materials into something we'd call an ark; Huck took a raft without permission of the presumed owner; Tom went to a house whatever the and up means.

It's almost certain the authors meant us to understand the sentences literally. But, what to we take with us? Who was Noah? Huck? Tom?

Well, if we were raised in a culture steeped in the Abrahamic religions, we automatically assume Noah of the Bible. If we are American, we probably get Huck Finn. None of us probably can guess who Tom might be (cuz I made it up, without a conscious reference to anything.)

So now we discover that the reader brings something to the table. (Here, I find the phrase "death of the author" deliciously ironic, but let that go.) Our culture deeply influences our interpretation.

So, did the author want us to understand that Noah actually built an actual ark? What did the author believe about what he wrote? Just a story? An allegory? History? Why did he include the story at all? Whatever he thought he was writing, there was a reason to tell the story. Perhaps all he wanted to say was that it happened. I'd say then that that would be a useless thing for a religious text. Perhaps he wanted to convey something about the nature of the relationship between God and man.

If the latter, that meaning is conveyed regardless of the historicity of the story.

In contrast, Twain both meant you to understand his sentence literally and as fiction.

And Tom? Well, we'd need more context before we'd be able to assess that sentence.

To circle back, it's not clear that there is a correct default way to read anything. You get clues from where and how you came across the text (e.g., what section of the library). And you bring yourself to the text; that is, you interpret the text from your own cultural accumulations.

(This is a long way of saying that I agree with @Ophiolite .)

Hentenza said:

I guess if we can’t have a friendly, civil conversation then there is very little point in continuing. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I have never met you. I have exchanged half a dozen short posts with you on an anonymous internet site. In what universe could that be thought to constitute a friendship? I believe I have been civil throughout our exchanges. If you feel otherwise, please specifiy, so I may rectify.

Im my experience, in writing, but more so in person, the phrase "my friend" is used to convey the opposite sense; at the very least a suppressed anger directed to the recipient. That was my interpretation of the most probable intent of your use of the phrase.

Ophiolite said:

I have never met you. I have exchanged half a dozen short posts with you on an anonymous internet site. In what universe could that be thought to constitute a friendship? I believe I have been civil throughout our exchanges. If you feel otherwise, please specifiy, so I may rectify.

Im my experience, in writing, but more so in person, the phrase "my friend" is used to convey the opposite sense; at the very least a suppressed anger directed to the recipient. That was my interpretation of the most probable intent of your use of the phrase.

Click to expand...

The is not how I use “my friend”. I’m a friendly guy and this is just a board. No prizes for being right or wrong. I like listening and learning from other people’s perspectives even if they don’t line up with mine. I might not agree but is still good to have the knowledge. I try not to make assumptions about people here. They usually reveal their true self in good time.

Ophiolite said:

Im my experience, in writing, but more so in person, the phrase "my friend" is used to convey the opposite sense; at the very least a suppressed anger directed to the recipient. That was my interpretation of the most probable intent of your use of the phrase.

Click to expand...

Including here?

Ophiolite said:

Then perhaps you should have sent the message by pm my friend. (Or even better, recognised that in a discussion forum all participants and lurkers are recipients of the message, my fellow member.)

Click to expand...