Complex Adaptive System for Bible Interpretation

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#1

I have been exploring the use of Complex Adaptive System (CAS) as a method for Bible interpretation. CAS is an approach to study and explain complex systems, systems that have many interrelated and interconnected parts. The Bible fits the definition of a complex system as it has many interrelated and interconnected teachings.

Traditional methods of interpretation attempt to gain understanding by seeking the author’s intended meaning, CAS seeks to understand the system by understanding the interconnections between parts, and making connections comes from knowing relationships between the parts and logically working through the interactions between the parts.

Besides relationships and interactions, CAS pays special attention to the meanings of words declared in the Bible. A declaration is what the Bible says it is. For those familiar with computer programming, declaring a meaning is like defining a variable with a value to be used for later processing.

The best way to explain CAS is with an example, and the most discussed topic in this forum, the doctrine of justification, will be used to explain CAS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unix

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#2

The two broad doctrines are justification by faith alone and justification by faith and works. But the Bible states five “justified by” situations: by grace, by faith, by works, by the faith of Christ, and by His blood. Therefore, there are five situations in which God justifies the ungodly.

To build connections, two or more things are required. What things are related to justification?

God’s relationship with His people is now through the New Covenant. The New Covenant must be the basis of the gospel message. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, His parables, His miracles, and Bible teachings as a whole must be traced back to the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the focal point.

The big question then: How do we connect all the teachings to the New Covenant? We look for patterns. CAS is also a study about patterns.
 
Upvote 0

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#3

The promise of the New Covenant was prophesied by several prophets. By connecting these prophecies, we can see the terms of the covenant from different aspects. (This is one advantage of making connections: showing the same thing in different perspectives). From the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, four terms of the covenant are established.

> I will put my Spirit in you, and move you to follow my decree and obey my laws.

> They will live in the land given to their forefathers. I will be your God, and you shall be my people.

> They will all know me.

> I will remember their sins no more.

The four terms of the covenant and the promise of the covenant itself give five situations. Through the process of interactions, the five ”justified by” are connected to the promise of the covenant and its terms. For example, I will put my Spirit in you (the first term in the covenant) is justified by faith. Try working out the other four connections.
 
Upvote 0

Dave-W

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!
Supporter
Jun 18, 2014
30,521
16,866
Maryland - just north of D.C.
Visit site
✟771,800.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Just remember to have the correct eyes when you read and connect the texts.

New Testament => first century Jewish eyes.
Books of Moses => Jewish eyes circa 1500 bc
Hebrew prophets and writings => Jewish eyes spanning the centuries between the previous 2.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Traditional methods of interpretation attempt to gain understanding by seeking the author’s intended meaning, CAS seeks to understand the system by understanding the interconnections between parts, and making connections comes from knowing relationships between the parts and logically working through the interactions between the parts.

Seems like you are conflating exegesis with systematics or systematic theology.

The problem with the description of CAS so-described is that it leads to, or encourages exegetical fallacies related to the words and interconnects parts. Authors then and now have a plethora of methods to express their meaning. They do so in sentences and with paragraphs. Unlike computer code where a line of code cannot have two possible meaning, a line of Hebrew or Greek sans punctuation can have hundreds of meanings. A quick glance at a concordance will demonstrate that at both the word level and interconnected part level we don't get enough context to make a unique meaning due to a wide lexical range.

Similarly, systematics is predicated on topical arrangement of authors intending to write on a subject matter, collected and analyzed to determine the range of a particular concept.

I will research Cs further but it looks like it would be a post modern tool for deconstructing and reconstructing texts devoid of their original meaning.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
So how parts relate to wholes in an engineering context is not how they relate in a linguistic context.

However a good Hebrew and good Greek grammar book will instantiate the syntactical rules similarly to ruling board instantiated and maintains a syntax for a particular programming language.

But remember the analogy breaks down rather quickly when we see the narrow vocabulary of Hebrew compared to modern languages. And then learn there is confusion about verb form. Not to mention no punctuation or vowels until 1000 years pass. We can confidently take English sentences happily ignorant of what the translators have done but how is this not eisogeting rather then exogeting? Who could differentiate between 100s of possible meanings given CAS approach?
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So how parts relate to wholes in an engineering context is not how they relate in a linguistic context.

However a good Hebrew and good Greek grammar book will instantiate the syntactical rules similarly to ruling board instantiated and maintains a syntax for a particular programming language.

But remember the analogy breaks down rather quickly when we see the narrow vocabulary of Hebrew compared to modern languages. And then learn there is confusion about verb form. Not to mention no punctuation or vowels until 1000 years pass. We can confidently take English sentences happily ignorant of what the translators have done but how is this not eisogeting rather then exogeting? Who could differentiate between 100s of possible meanings given CAS approach?

While I don't disagree with your evaluation of CAS, I do think that you exaggerating the difficulties of exegeting a Hebrew text quite a bit. While most Hebrew words have a broader semantic range of meaning than English words, no Hebrew words have 100's of possible meanings. Additionally, when there are questions about the meaning of a word, there are seldom more than a few possible choices because context and grammar eliminates most possible choices.

For example, let's look at אכל:

אכל הילד הז את הלחם
This boy ate the bread.

אכל האש את הבית
The fire burned the house.

נאכל הבית באש
The house was burned by the fire.

נאכל הלחם על ידי הילד
The bread was eaten by the boy.

הוא מאכיל את בנו לחם
He feeds his son bread.

While the word אכל which has many different definitions in the Lexicon, in these examples it is specifically understood only one way in each sentence. The word לחם on the other hand has all but two meanings eliminated i.e. it could be understood as bread (or in a more general sense as simply food), but it would never be understood in this context as "he fought" even though this is also included as a definition in a Hebrew lexicon.
 
Upvote 0

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
General reply:
Bible doctrines are built from the meanings we assign to words. We can eliminate some meanings, but we cannot categorically confirm the meanings for all words. Bible doctrines are sensitive dependence on initial meanings, deviations from intended meanings set off the butterfly effect. The result is the umpteen denominations we have.
 
Upvote 0

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#4

Finding a meaning is one thing, getting people to agree on that meaning is another. For over 400 years, Christians cannot agree on the meaning of justification. An alternative approach is necessary; Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

CAS allows a way forward without knowing the meaning of justification. CAS is fascinating because of a property known as emergence, the spontaneous pattern formation as a result of simple interactions between elements of a system - think of migrating birds flying in an aerodynamic V-shaped formation, or ants taking the optimum route to the food source. Emergence allows us to move forward, constructing structures, without seeking the meaning of justification. Imagine, understanding emerges from simple interactions of biblical teachings. Emergence, the result of simple interactions between elements of a system, appears to be a hallmark of God’s creativity; it is found throughout nature, and now, detected in the Bible.

Emergence - the spontaneous formation - is a process of self-organisation, elements of a system organise themselves without a guide, overseer, or ruler. Self-organisation is mentioned in the Bible: Go to the ant, you sluggard, consider her ways and be wise; having no guide, overseer, or ruler provides her food in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. (Proverbs 6:6). Given this advice, emergence in the Bible is an intended strategic construction. Unveiling this strategic construction proves that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
 
Upvote 0

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
#5

Many NT Bible passages associate forgiveness of sins with the blood of Christ. Thus, the fourth term of the covenant, I will remember your sins no more is justified by the blood of Christ.

The New Covenant promises redemption for humanity, and through the Covenant the ungodly are saved. It is by grace we are saved, thus the promise of the New Covenant is justified freely by the grace of God.

There remain two terms of the covenant (see #3) to be connected to the two remaining justifications: by works and by the faith of Christ. Any takers?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Norbert L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 1, 2009
2,856
1,064
✟560,360.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
#1

I have been exploring the use of Complex Adaptive System (CAS) as a method for Bible interpretation. CAS is an approach to study and explain complex systems, systems that have many interrelated and interconnected parts. The Bible fits the definition of a complex system as it has many interrelated and interconnected teachings.

Traditional methods of interpretation attempt to gain understanding by seeking the author’s intended meaning, CAS seeks to understand the system by understanding the interconnections between parts, and making connections comes from knowing relationships between the parts and logically working through the interactions between the parts.

Besides relationships and interactions, CAS pays special attention to the meanings of words declared in the Bible. A declaration is what the Bible says it is. For those familiar with computer programming, declaring a meaning is like defining a variable with a value to be used for later processing.

The best way to explain CAS is with an example, and the most discussed topic in this forum, the doctrine of justification, will be used to explain CAS.
I have a question for you. Is using the process CAS you're describing like getting bible software where you can perform a search for each phrase such as "justified by faith, justified by grace" and so on, read all the results and try to determine a commonality between all of them?
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
no Hebrew words have 100's of possible meanings

My post clearly says, "We can confidently take English sentences happily ignorant of what the translators have done but how is this not eisogeting rather then exogeting? Who could differentiate between 100s of possible meanings given CAS approach?

Sentences not words. It is easy to get 100s of possible meanings out of ten or 15 word sentences.

Especially if we ignore literary context and approach them as if each word had a range of meanings.

Run - as isn't paint, or a production run, or to jog, or lengthy sentence.

We haven't even gotten to literary genre or figures of speech.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Finding a meaning is one thing, getting people to agree on that meaning is another. For over 400 years, Christians cannot agree on the meaning of justification. An alternative approach is necessary; Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and

False analogy.

Assumes that scripture intended us to have a more complete picture of justification or other concepts than we have.

While all knowledge progresses Over time. Why assume that God doesn't the same for Christian knowledge from scripture. We have recently catalogued over 100,000 texts from the Quran communities allowing much better access to second temple Judaism than ever before.g we have whole new understanding of Jesus' culture and the figures of speech that were being used by the NT writers.

Agreement by scholars is also not the measure of knowledge.
 
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Emergence - the spontaneous formation - is a process of self-organisation, elements of a system organise themselves without a guide, overseer, or ruler. Self-organisation is mentioned in the Bible: Go to the ant, you sluggard, consider her ways and be wise; having no guide, overseer, or ruler provides her food in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest. (Proverbs 6:6). Given this advice, emergence in the Bible is an intended strategic construction. Unveiling this strategic construction proves that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

I know emergence - snowflake have properties that "emerge" namely, what're cristalizes to form certain molecular structures when encountering a sudden decree in temperature to below freezing.

These are necessary causes due to laws.

Asking human agents to word hard by using a simile doesn't seem to lead us to the conclusion, "therefore, the Bible is an intended strategic construction or inspired." The conclusion read something into the passage it was never meant to communicate followed by non-sequiturs.

How do you understand inspiration? If scripture is emergent in what sense? Words appearing on pages, authors falling into trances as their hands automatically write our Henrew, Aramaic, and Greek sentences?
 
Upvote 0

def

Member
Supporter
Oct 13, 2010
584
62
✟89,770.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have a question for you. Is using the process CAS you're describing like getting bible software where you can perform a search for each phrase such as "justified by faith, justified by grace" and so on, read all the results and try to determine a commonality between all of them?

Many Christians, at least the Bible scholars, are well aware of the various justifications: by faith, grace, works, and so on. For them search is not necessary. They have the information, they pursue the meaning of each justification, and, according to complexity scientists, this reductionist approach is bound to fail. The understanding does not come from the individual teachings, but by the way they connect with each other. Hence, in CAS, making connections is an important activity, and in many instances, search (data mining the Bible) is necessary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My post clearly says, "We can confidently take English sentences happily ignorant of what the translators have done but how is this not eisogeting rather then exogeting? Who could differentiate between 100s of possible meanings given CAS approach?

Sentences not words. It is easy to get 100s of possible meanings out of ten or 15 word sentences.

Especially if we ignore literary context and approach them as if each word had a range of meanings.

Run - as isn't paint, or a production run, or to jog, or lengthy sentence.

We haven't even gotten to literary genre or figures of speech.

That really doesn't change the point i.e. within the context of a sentence, the possible meanings that can be applied are reduced not increased. Note: I said, "context and grammar eliminates most possible choices" i.e. as a word is used within a sentence. ALL of the examples I provided demonstrate that the possible number of meanings are reduced when a word is used within a sentence. Hebrew roots may have a dozen or more possible meanings when just the meanings of the root itself is considered, but when used in a sentence most possible meanings are eliminated. Your suggestion that there are more possible meanings when there are more words in a sentence is contrary to the facts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Unix
Upvote 0

Uber Genius

"Super Genius"
Aug 13, 2016
2,919
1,243
Kentucky
✟56,826.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
That really doesn't change the point i.e. within the context of a sentence, the possible meanings that can be applied are reduced not increased. Note: I said, "context and grammar eliminates most possible choices" i.e. as a word is used within a sentence. ALL of the examples I provided demonstrate that the possible number of meanings are reduced when a word is used within a sentence. Hebrew roots may have a dozen or more possible meanings when just the meanings of the root itself is considered, but when used in a sentence most possible meanings are eliminated. Your suggestion that there are more possible meanings when there are more words in a sentence is contrary to the facts.
Butterfly is made up of butter and fly. Therefore the your CaS approach produces (instead of a univocal meaning that would have been understood by the original audience), numerous possible meanings.

Flies made into a butter, butter filled with flies, flies that have been dipped in butter, butter hat has the ability to fly.

Your CAS generates innumerable word study fallacies.

The problem with this is that etymology can often be deceiving, such as in the English word “butterfly” taken from “butter” and “fly.” An etymological study of this word only confuses the current usage. The same can be said of the word “good-bye,” which is taken from the Anglo-Saxon, “God be with you.” When someone says “good-bye,” it does not necessarily (if ever) mean that they are calling a blessing of God’s presence to be with you.

From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies:

“One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent.”? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the literal meaning of monogenes is “only begotten.” Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used?

All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thistleton offers by way of example our word ‘nice’, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.” It is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be “good-by.” But I know of no one today who in saying that such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is ‘ignorant’.”

Destroying authorial meaning.

It is the perfect tool for post-modern eisogesis.
 
Upvote 0

benelchi

INACTIVE
Aug 3, 2011
693
140
✟17,798.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Butterfly is made up of butter and fly. Therefore the your CaS approach produces (instead of a univocal meaning that would have been understood by the original audience), numerous possible meanings.

Flies made into a butter, butter filled with flies, flies that have been dipped in butter, butter hat has the ability to fly.

Your CAS generates innumerable word study fallacies.

The problem with this is that etymology can often be deceiving, such as in the English word “butterfly” taken from “butter” and “fly.” An etymological study of this word only confuses the current usage. The same can be said of the word “good-bye,” which is taken from the Anglo-Saxon, “God be with you.” When someone says “good-bye,” it does not necessarily (if ever) mean that they are calling a blessing of God’s presence to be with you.

From D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies:

“One of the most enduring fallacies, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is by the roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of apostolos (apostle) is apostello (I send), the root meaning of “apostle” is “one who is sent.”? In the preface of the New King James Bible, we are told that the literal meaning of monogenes is “only begotten.” Is that true? How often do preachers refer to the verb agapao (to love), contrast it with phileo (to love) and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that agapao is used?

All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thistleton offers by way of example our word ‘nice’, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good-by” is a contraction for Anglo-Saxon “God be with you.” It is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be “good-by.” But I know of no one today who in saying that such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is ‘ignorant’.”

Destroying authorial meaning.

It is the perfect tool for post-modern eisogesis.

First, I nothing I said had anything to do with supporting CAS, I was simply providing you real examples from Hebrew that contradict the claims you had made about the vast semantic range of meaning possible i.e. your claim about hundreds of possible meanings.

Second, the examples I provided have nothing to do with root fallacy presuppositions. Carson's book is a book I frequently recommend, but it has nothing to do with the claim you made. If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that I was arguing for exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. My point was that words used in a sentence have a much more limited semantic range of meaning than a word with no context might have i.e. combining words, whether they are compound words or are simply part of a phrase limits rather than expands the semantic range of meaning.
 
Upvote 0