autonomous interpretation

[Deamiter]

I am wondering if there is going to be a revelation of why this is in "Origins Theology".

Makes sense to me. Creationists often claim that the Bible itself is evidence for their beliefs. Their interpretation is lauded as the only correct interpretation. Because of this, some basic discussion of biblical interpretation are appropriate in the forum.

As a mod here, I would have left it in this forum since different forums have very different regular members. It's not directly on topic, but it addresses a topic that is often cited in debates about the Bible's discussion of origins..

 

[jereth]

We also are told to measure what we are taught against the scripture, not to decipher the scripture by what we have been taught:

Acts 17:11
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Certainly, we must use the Scripture as the ultimate test. But the collective effort of the community of believers is necessary to effectively interpret and apply the Scriptures. Luke does not say here that the Bereans searched the Scriptures as individuals, they did it as a community, and within the larger context of the universal Church. Bear in mind that if the Church hadn't preached the gospel in Berea, the Bereans would have NEVER arrived at a correct interpretation of Scripture on their own no matter how hard they tried.

1 John 2:27
John 14:26
John 16:13

Jesus is addressing the Apostles as a collective body in all of these verses. The apostles here are the foundation of the Church (Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:19-22). Therefore, he is teaching that the Holy Spirit works on the whole church to lead it into truth.

I am totaly fallible, but God is capable of revealing truth to me. Through others? Yes, but can I count on others to be any less fallble than myself? God must be my source for truth.

God is the source of truth, but does he reveal truth to individuals reading the Bible separately, or to the Church reading the Bible corporately? I think that individuals are capable of receiving truth from private Bible study, but this must be checked and refined against the corporate knowledge of the Church as a whole. An individual is far more prone to erroneous interpretation than a corporate body working together. So to answer your question: Yes, you can count on others to be less fallible than yourself working alone. Christian history has borne this out.

I am wondering if there is going to be a revelation of why this is in "Origins Theology".

rmwilliamsll has noticed a recurrent statement by YECs: along the lines of "I'll stick to the clear interpretation of Genesis unless the Holy Spirit reveals to me otherwise". This sort of claim reflects the belief that the Spirit can be relied on to give me the right understanding all the time. Which is false. No individual can expect to have the right understanding all the time. True understanding comes through the corporate effort of the Church to understand the Scriptures.

 

[shernren]

I guess when I read the parables I feel they're defuct of complexity.

Also common commentaries on the use Jesus' teaching by parables are compared with the vs that states that he would use the simple to confound the wise...

Need more?

Precisely where does Jesus state that he would use the simple to confound the wise? The closest I can find is Matthew 11/Luke 10, in one instance Jesus is talking about the miracles He manifested to John (the Baptist)'s followers, in the other He is talking about the miracles performed by the Seventy-Two. Or it is a statement by Paul directly relating to the foolishness of the cross and resurrection, nothing much to do with Jesus' parables.

As an Asian reader I find a lot of implicit meaning that may not be very clear to readers outside Asian culture. A good place to start would be Sting in the Tail by Dr. Kim Tan (IIRC), treats the Oriental nuances of the stories very well.

I'm reminded as I formulate this post of the times of Jesus when he taught the Jewish communities in which he lived and worked. Oddly, he spoke simplistically, holding great revelation back from those who would not understand.

One only needs to look at the issue of the divorce certificate command to see that Jesus' relationship with the Torah was far more complex than a simple creationist "God's Word says it and that settles it!" literalism. I typed this up somewhere here sometime ago but I lost it so I'll have to redo all this.

The incident in question is recorded in Mark 10 and Matthew 19. Mark 10 is quoted more often by creationists so I'll use that since it's likely that you'll be more familiar with it

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
"What did Moses command you?" he replied.
They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

Mark 10:1-11, NIV

What happens here is that essentially Jesus reinterprets the Torah. He breaks all the rules: He refers to information outside the text to interpret the text (for nowhere in the Torah does it say that Moses did this due to the Jews' hard-heartedness), He does not take the text at its plain meaning (which would never betray its being given as a stopgap measure), and He essentially says that the Torah's measure was inadequate and (morally) inaccurate.

Furthermore, when He attributes the giving of a divorce certificate to the hardness of their hearts, He brings into question one of the images that the OT uses to describe God:

This is what the LORD says:
"Where is your mother's certificate of divorce
with which I sent her away?
Or to which of my creditors
did I sell you?
Because of your sins you were sold;
because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.

Isaiah 50:1 (NIV)

I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.

Jeremiah 3:8 (NIV)

Now, Moses told the Jews to give certificates of divorce because they were hard-hearted, says Jesus. Doesn't that imply that God Himself was hard-hearted when He is spoken of as issuing a certificate of divorce to Israel?

You can see where I'm going here. Jesus in "taking liberties" with the Torah even calls into question the interpretation of Scriptures outside the Torah. And what He is saying here is that the Torah, which was given explicitly to prescribe morality, was not even perfect in these prescriptions.

Whereas what we TEs are saying is merely that the Torah was not even given to describe reality, and therefore should not be expected to be perfect in those descriptions. The modifications we suggest are mild compared to those Jesus suggested.

 

[livingword26]

rmwilliamsll has noticed a recurrent statement by YECs: along the lines of "I'll stick to the clear interpretation of Genesis unless the Holy Spirit reveals to me otherwise". This sort of claim reflects the belief that the Spirit can be relied on to give me the right understanding all the time. Which is false. No individual can expect to have the right understanding all the time. True understanding comes through the corporate effort of the Church to understand the Scriptures.

The corperate effort of the church is not doing to well on many positions. As I referred to earlier, many opposing groups claim truth. But to do so, they must omit other scriptures. The wholeness of the scripture will enlighten all false doctrines, if the pride of man will put down them down and search for the truth. If there were a unified church, that was clearly backed by scripture, then perhaps your position would be a little easier to adhere to. Seeking "interperetation" in itself can be an indication that one does not want to take scripture at face value. Why must there be an alternative understanding of what Genesis says literally? Why can't it just mean what it says?

 

[Deamiter]

The corperate effort of the church is not doing to well on many positions. As I referred to earlier, many opposing groups claim truth. But to do so, they must omit other scriptures. The wholeness of the scripture will enlighten all false doctrines, if the pride of man will put down them down and search for the truth. If there were a unified church, that was clearly backed by scripture, then perhaps your position would be a little easier to adhere to. Seeking "interperetation" in itself can be an indication that one does not want to take scripture at face value. Why must there be an alternative understanding of what Genesis says literally? Why can't it just mean what it says?

And yet shernen just showed how even Jesus didn't take many parts of the Torah at its face value. Jesus didn't comment on every bit of the Old Testement, but he made it clear more than once that the plain reading wasn't accurate. If the Jewish people -- who God spoke to directly and frequently couldn't interpret it correctly even with years of study, what makes you think you can just read it and know "what it says?"

I assume you posted without reading shernen's post just before yours. He directly answers your questions -- you might want to respond to his post.

 

[livingword26]

1Co 1:26-29
(26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
(27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are:
(29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[Deamiter]

1Co 1:26-29
(26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
(27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are:
(29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

*sigh* The insinuation being that evolutionists are the wise who are confounded by the foolish science? Or that creationists are the wise who are confounded by their foolish interpretation of scripture?

Surely you can see why this type of random Biblical quote is utterly worthless without mention of context -- both literary and cultural!

I've always felt that those who profess to know with certainty what God WOULD have done, and how God SHOULD have written the Bible to be rather foolish (though they call themselves wise). It is those who admit they don't know and search every corner of the Universe, in physical sciences, historical research and theology, that are lead to a solid understanding of the Truth that God has revealed to his followers through the last few millenia.

 

[livingword26]

*sigh* The insinuation being that evolutionists are the wise who are confounded by the foolish science? Or that creationists are the wise who are confounded by their foolish interpretation of scripture?

Surely you can see why this type of random Biblical quote is utterly worthless without mention of context -- both literary and cultural!

Actually I was doing as you suggested and reading the persons post you suggested, the bible verse was directed towards that.

I assume you posted without reading shernen's post just before yours. He directly answers your questions -- you might want to respond to his post.

Precisely where does Jesus state that he would use the simple to confound the wise? The closest I can find is Matthew 11/Luke 10, in one instance Jesus is talking about the miracles He manifested to John (the Baptist)'s followers, in the other He is talking about the miracles performed by the Seventy-Two. Or it is a statement by Paul directly relating to the foolishness of the cross and resurrection, nothing much to do with Jesus' parables.

1Co 1:26-29
(26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
(27) But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
(28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are:
(29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[Deamiter]

Actually I was doing as you suggested and reading the persons post you suggested, the bible verse was directed towards that.

So... you're acknowledging that even as a plain reading of the text (by creationist standards) was considered by the 'wise' theologians to be the meaning of the text, the real meaning behind many of these passages are less obvious in order to "confound the wise."

Makes more sense now.

 

[Assyrian]

Isn't that passage talking about the foolishness of the cross?

1Cor 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men...

Just because God's seeming foolishness is greater than the wisdom of men, doesn't mean that every Christian foolishness automatically qualifies as divine wisdom. Wouldn't geocentrists and flatearthers be even more qualified if this were the case?