The four assumptions

[JonMiller]

The story has life of it's own (a good one does, at least). I can engage it and dialogue with it, without ever doing so with the author.

Haven't you ever read a book, been interested in the author (such is natural), went and read about them, found what they said about the story... and found that they saw it (even events within it) as happening entirely different from you?

Now I agree that they have a story, and for engaging with them, it would be interesting for me to talk about their story with them. But my story, the one that existed in my head as I read the book, is independent of the author's desires... or even the history of the situation. It has nothing to do with the author's story.

The author was just a mechanism for giving the story life. If you will, the author is the father.. the book is the sperm, and I am the mother, with the story coming to life within my mind.

Jon Miller

 

[sentipente]

I can live with that but the product of that process is entirely personal and does not merit universal application.

 

[StormyOne]

The story has life of it's own (a good one does, at least). I can engage it and dialogue with it, without ever doing so with the author.

Haven't you ever read a book, been interested in the author (such is natural), went and read about them, found what they said about the story... and found that they saw it (even events within it) as happening entirely different from you?

Now I agree that they have a story, and for engaging with them, it would be interesting for me to talk about their story with them. But my story, the one that existed in my head as I read the book, is independent of the author's desires... or even the history of the situation. It has nothing to do with the author's story.

The author was just a mechanism for giving the story life. If you will, the author is the father.. the book is the sperm, and I am the mother, with the story coming to life within my mind.

Jon Miller

interesting... while I might choose to find out background info on the author, I have never thought about getting their take on the story they have written....

I see where you are coming from but I would agree with Senti, anything meaningful you get from a story that you have read would have to be personal and not applicable to all of us.... sort of like Morpheus' statement to Neo after he met with the Oracle.... "What the Oracle told you is for you, no one else..."

 

[JonMiller]

I can live with that but the product of that process is entirely personal and does not merit universal application.

I lean that way, there are some who follow reader-response who don't though.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I lean that way, there are some who follow reader-response who don't though.

JM

It would seem that reader-response require each one to read for himself so it would be a violation of the process for them to attempt universal application.

 

[JonMiller]

There could be a universal application if there was a universal reader.

JM

 

[sentipente]

I hate it when we revert to nonsense talk.

 

[JonMiller]

Some would disagree with you. I don't.

Jon Miller

 

[JonMiller]

Basically, I think that the interpretation is going to be unique per person, and that in order to gain spiritually from the Bible, you have to read the stories with prayer and a spiritual mindset. God will than lead you. (btw, this is how I think one should read any book spiritually... what books you think are valuable to read spiritually is up to you.)

I don't think that learning about the writers of the Bible helps, as that is just learning about the human component... and it is so long ago and so complicated by translations and humans being inherently complicated beings, that trying to do so adds little (no?) of spiritual value.

If I want to learn about humans, I think that Tolstoy and Faulkner might be better (partially just because of being closer in time).

Jon Miller
(You similarly have to be in a special mindset and prepared to read and understand scientific works.)

 

[sentipente]

I would hope that those who read scientific texts don't take them to be stories open to personal emotion.

 

[JonMiller]

Your mathematical and logic circuits have to be ready and working, and you should probably have a pencil and paper handy. Also, you should have available the information that is being built upon.

Yes, scientific texts are not stories.

JM

 

[sentipente]

Would that information happen to be historical?

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Although jumping in really late in this, I just wanted to say that regardless of how it all got put together..I have faith that God didn't allow error in it. So, it's not so much that the Bible is at godly level to me, more so that I feel God was in control when it was put together.

Considering this is coming from someone who loathed the Bible for the first 15 years of her life, I think that's a pretty interesting leap. *lol*

 

[sentipente]

Interesting that we believe God would allow error to enter into the Universe He created but are certain He would not allow error into a book that men wrote.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Humans tend to think of things as -- or want things to be -- static.
They think in terms of products and end results, not in terms of process.

"to the pure all things bes pure" ... has anyone ever stopped to think about that? literally? try putting something you consider "impure" in that sentence...:

• to the pure, filth bes pure
• to the pure, pestilence bes pure
• to the pure, group sex bes pure
• to the pure, smearing excrement and blood on oneself bes pure
• to the pure, murder bes pure
• to the pure, molesting the innocent bes pure

sure stands that on its head, eyh?

oh what, you want to debate that? what proof have you that it bes not literally as it reads and means ALL THINGS???

see, that bes the dynamics of it all. that bes the PROCESS.

communicating with God through scripture bes not a matter of casting dry bones like an oracle and reading them .... or rather, might it be? the way they fall must be parsed, intuited, divined ...
no communicating with God through scripture bes a matter of the process itself. reading and weeding. digging and uncovering, clearing off the dirt and assembling the parts, breaking things open to get the sweet meats inside.

to the pure all things bes pure.

all means all.

dig it.

 

[StormyOne]

Although jumping in really late in this, I just wanted to say that regardless of how it all got put together..I have faith that God didn't allow error in it. So, it's not so much that the Bible is at godly level to me, more so that I feel God was in control when it was put together.

Considering this is coming from someone who loathed the Bible for the first 15 years of her life, I think that's a pretty interesting leap. *lol*

seems like you have traded one extreme in for another extreme... live a little longer and continue to study... you will be pleasantly surprised....

 

[sentipente]

Humans tend to think of things as -- or want things to be -- static.
They think in terms of products and end results, not in terms of process.

"to the pure all things bes pure" ... has anyone ever stopped to think about that? literally? try putting something you consider "impure" in that sentence...:

• to the pure, filth bes pure
• to the pure, pestilence bes pure
• to the pure, group sex bes pure
• to the pure, smearing excrement and blood on oneself bes pure
• to the pure, murder bes pure
• to the pure, molesting the innocent bes pure

sure stands that on its head, eyh?

oh what, you want to debate that? what proof have you that it bes not literally as it reads and means ALL THINGS???

see, that bes the dynamics of it all. that bes the PROCESS.

What that passage really is saying is that we should put the emphasis on being pure rather than on labelling things as being pure or impure. When we become pure then our choices will automatically change because the world around us imposes a bias towards what is best for us.

 

[JonMiller]

Would that information happen to be historical?

Histories are obviously stories...

JM

 

[sentipente]

Histories are obviously stories...

JM

But there is danger in reinventing history.

 

[StormyOne]

But there is danger in reinventing history.

revising history, reading into history things that never happened, all fall under that umbrella of reinventing history.... which is done all the time...