Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu May 05, 2016 9:14 am

<< Week of May 05, 2016 >>
Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday
5 Day Month

6 Day Month

7 Day Month

8 Day Month

9 Day Month

10 Day Month

11 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
My Thoughts 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4835
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Interbane wrote:
Quote:
There are principles of interpreting the Bible. They are called hermeneutics and they are intened to provide a structure to avoid wild speculation. It appears that Mr. Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.


Your "principles" of hermeneutics are assumptions, axiomatic modes of interpretation. While structured, it is still speculation, and subjective. No better than what Wright does.




Quote:
The concept of hermeneutics has acquired at least two different (related but nevertheless distinct) meanings, both of which are in use today. First, in the older sense, Biblical hermeneutics may be understood as the theological principles of exegesis; in fact, it is often virtually synonymous with 'principles of biblical interpretation', or methodology of Biblical exegesis. Second, the more recent development is to understand the term 'Biblical hermeneutics' as the broader philosophy, linguistics, etc. underpinnings of interpretation. The question is posed: "How is understanding possible?" The rationale of this approach is that, while Scripture is 'more than just an ordinary text', it is in the first instance 'text', which human beings try to understand; in this sense, the principles of understanding any text apply to the Bible as well (regardless of whatever other specifically theological principles one might want to consider in addition to that).

Theological hermeneutics as traditional Christian Biblical exegesis
This particular form of theological hermeneutics, especially within the mainstream Protestant tradition, considers Christian Biblical hermeneutics in the tradition of explication of the text, or exegesis, to deal with various principles that can be applied to the study of Scripture. If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound. Thus Biblical hermeneutics differs from hermeneutics as generally understood. Within such traditional Protestant theology, there are a variety of interpretive formulae. Such formulae are generally not mutually exclusive, and interpreters may adhere to several of these approaches at once. Such formulae include:[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics


I should not need to point out the difference between interpretation and ommission. The point of hermeneutics is that you begin with the text as written and its simplest interpretation and then justify moving to the more abstract.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:10 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5455
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1350
Thanked: 1355 times in 1058 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
Quote:
If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.

Don't you think this excerpt explains succinctly why there is no meeting of the minds in this forum, regarding the Bible?


_________________
No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live as we dream--alone.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness


Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4835
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Quote:
If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.

Don't you think this excerpt explains succinctly why there is no meeting of the minds in this forum, regarding the Bible?


There need not be a meeting of the minds in order for there to be positivie progress made. What one needs is an openess to dialogue. For example, when a discussion is presented relating to unsavory aspects of a Bible story we need not divert into the ditch to justify or debunk the casuality figures based on speculation of the population of an area 3,000 years ago. When discussing Genesis chapter 1, we don't get bogged down trying to cram our favorite canard down each other's throats. This seems an endemic issue with Bible discussion. To me it seems a bit Biblephobic, as if an atheist or agnostic cannot discuss the Bible without every other sentence pounding home the idea that they don't believe the Bible. Wright does it in his book and it causes him, in his attempt to creatively frame the nth iteration to select examples which actually emphasize his lack of Bible knowledge. We don't do this when we study poetry, or Greek mythology, and yet, it seems the only thing we can do with the Bible. Does it not seem odd that the book which had had the greatest impact on Western Civilization cannot be systematically read and discussed on a website devoted to discussing books.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Tue Oct 05, 2010 8:23 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Vacuums Around Book Piles

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3920
Location: NC
Thanks: 1490
Thanked: 1583 times in 1204 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:

There need not be a meeting of the minds in order for there to be positivie progress made. What one needs is an openess to dialogue.


Unfortunately, your definition of "openness" includes the possibility that the Bible is literally true. That's not openness, that's delusion and willful ignorance.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:01 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Vacuums Around Book Piles

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 3920
Location: NC
Thanks: 1490
Thanked: 1583 times in 1204 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: My Thoughts
DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Quote:
If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.

Don't you think this excerpt explains succinctly why there is no meeting of the minds in this forum, regarding the Bible?


DWill, I know you are being tactful, but let's not mince words. There is a meeting of minds in this forum with regards to the Bible. There is only one person whose uniquely dogmatic interpretation of the Bible is at odds with everyone else.

Granted, that one person posts an awful lot. :x


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:31 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5455
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1350
Thanked: 1355 times in 1058 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
Quote:
If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.

DWill wrote:
Don't you think this excerpt explains succinctly why there is no meeting of the minds in this forum, regarding the Bible?


Quote:
There need not be a meeting of the minds in order for there to be positivie progress made. What one needs is an openess to dialogue. For example, when a discussion is presented relating to unsavory aspects of a Bible story we need not divert into the ditch to justify or debunk the casuality figures based on speculation of the population of an area 3,000 years ago. When discussing Genesis chapter 1, we don't get bogged down trying to cram our favorite canard down each other's throats. This seems an endemic issue with Bible discussion. To me it seems a bit Biblephobic, as if an atheist or agnostic cannot discuss the Bible without every other sentence pounding home the idea that they don't believe the Bible. Wright does it in his book and it causes him, in his attempt to creatively frame the nth iteration to select examples which actually emphasize his lack of Bible knowledge. We don't do this when we study poetry, or Greek mythology, and yet, it seems the only thing we can do with the Bible. Does it not seem odd that the book which had had the greatest impact on Western Civilization cannot be systematically read and discussed on a website devoted to discussing books.

A meeting of the minds doesn't mean agreement; it just means that participants are in the same general vicinity. It's a simple matter of knowing when discussion will be profitable and when it won't. You just avoid those topics that are going to highlight people's conflicts with each other, that's all. It would be like the situation of having Uncle Morrie come for a visit. He's a great guy you can have fun with, but please don't bring up that subject. You and I could talk about almost any topic without impasse, I would think, but unfortunately not the Bible. Look again at the passage you've kindly provided. The fact that you believe the axiom and I don't means that any shared attempt at analysis of the Bible will be snarled with unprofitable conflict. You appear to insist that there is neutral ground on which the parties could come together, only it isn't really neutral ground; it's tilted toward you. By proposing that we look at the Bible as though it were not a written product having some of the same hallmarks as any other written product (e.g., a history of composition), you're proposing something that seems to many unreasonable. No wonder they want to stay away.

If you want to get closer to neutral, you'd have to take a more detached or non-devotional approach to the Bible, maybe similar to a Bible-as-literature approach. A "good stuff in the Bible" approach might work also. You probably don't believe this, but I think the Bible is a great book (esp. the OT), and I would like to know more about it. But the way I (and Wright) have gone about talking about it is inherently offensive to you, so a different mode would have to be adopted if there's to be any sense in having a conversation.


_________________
No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live as we dream--alone.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness


Last edited by DWill on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:40 am
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5455
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1350
Thanked: 1355 times in 1058 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
geo wrote:

DWill, I know you are being tactful, but let's not mince words. There is a meeting of minds in this forum with regards to the Bible. There is only one person whose uniquely dogmatic interpretation of the Bible is at odds with everyone else.

Granted, that one person posts an awful lot. :x

Yes, you're right of course that there is a consensus here that the Bible is not the word of God, and that there is only one, apparently, who thinks otherwise. I'm looking at starwhe as a representative of the other side, one standing for many.


_________________
No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live as we dream--alone.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness


Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:48 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4835
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Quote:
If it is axiomatic that the canon of Scripture must be an organic whole, rather than an accumulation of disparate individual texts written and edited in the course of history, then any interpretation that contradicts any other part of scripture is not considered to be sound.

DWill wrote:
Don't you think this excerpt explains succinctly why there is no meeting of the minds in this forum, regarding the Bible?


Quote:
There need not be a meeting of the minds in order for there to be positivie progress made. What one needs is an openess to dialogue. For example, when a discussion is presented relating to unsavory aspects of a Bible story we need not divert into the ditch to justify or debunk the casuality figures based on speculation of the population of an area 3,000 years ago. When discussing Genesis chapter 1, we don't get bogged down trying to cram our favorite canard down each other's throats. This seems an endemic issue with Bible discussion. To me it seems a bit Biblephobic, as if an atheist or agnostic cannot discuss the Bible without every other sentence pounding home the idea that they don't believe the Bible. Wright does it in his book and it causes him, in his attempt to creatively frame the nth iteration to select examples which actually emphasize his lack of Bible knowledge. We don't do this when we study poetry, or Greek mythology, and yet, it seems the only thing we can do with the Bible. Does it not seem odd that the book which had had the greatest impact on Western Civilization cannot be systematically read and discussed on a website devoted to discussing books.

A meeting of the minds doesn't mean agreement; it just means that participants are in the same general vicinity. It's a simple matter of knowing when discussion will be profitable and when it won't. You just avoid those topics that are going to highlight people's conflicts with each other, that's all. It would be like the situation of having Uncle Morrie come for a visit. He's a great guy you can have fun with, but please don't bring up that subject. You and I could talk about almost any topic without impasse, I would think, but unfortunately not the Bible. Look again at the passage you've kindly provided. The fact that you believe the axiom and I don't means that any shared attempt at analysis of the Bible will be snarled with unprofitable conflict. You appear to insist that there is neutral ground on which the parties could come together, only it isn't really neutral ground; it's tilted toward you. By proposing that we look at the Bible as though it were not a written product having some of the same hallmarks as any other written product (e.g., a history of composition), you're proposing something that seems to many unreasonable. No wonder they want to stay away.

If you want to get closer to neutral, you'd have to take a more detached or non-devotional approach to the Bible, maybe similar to a Bible-as-literature approach. A "good stuff in the Bible" approach might work also. You probably don't believe this, but I think the Bible is a great book (esp. the OT), and I would like to know more about it. But the way I (and Wright) have gone about talking about it is inherently offensive to you, so a different mode would have to be adopted if there's to be any sense in having a conversation.


In fact, I have had specific people associated with Booktalk.org request discussions of the Bible. I am perfectly willing to do so in an open forum where criticisms of the Bible are also considered. But it doesn't work. The Genesis discussion got bogged down with arguments about day 4. The attempt to discuss Evil Bible stories got bogged down with an argument about the population of the ancient world. Why? The point of the Evil designation of the story had nothing to do with the population but it instantly was siezed on as a means of reinforcing the bedrock position that the Bible is wrong. I know you believe that. So what's the point of beating it. You bring it up and I am going to challenge it so instead of discussing the story, we frustrate everyone. Too bad because by now we could have been halfway through the Bible, instead, we flail around in ad hoc discussions with people who argue against the authencity of the Bible. Too bad too because our discussions would be much more interesting if we could get to the meat.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:14 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5455
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1350
Thanked: 1355 times in 1058 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
In fact, I have had specific people associated with Booktalk.org request discussions of the Bible. I am perfectly willing to do so in an open forum where criticisms of the Bible are also considered. But it doesn't work. The Genesis discussion got bogged down with arguments about day 4. The attempt to discuss Evil Bible stories got bogged down with an argument about the population of the ancient world. Why? The point of the Evil designation of the story had nothing to do with the population but it instantly was siezed on as a means of reinforcing the bedrock position that the Bible is wrong. I know you believe that. So what's the point of beating it. You bring it up and I am going to challenge it so instead of discussing the story, we frustrate everyone. Too bad because by now we could have been halfway through the Bible, instead, we flail around in ad hoc discussions with people who argue against the authencity of the Bible. Too bad too because our discussions would be much more interesting if we could get to the meat.

What is a criticism to you is just an interesting line of inquiry to me. Bottom line, I think: you want to talk about the Bible as it reveals and justifies God's purpose. No one else here that I've heard from has any interest in that. If that isn't true about your viewpoint, tell me then what else you'd want to do in a Bible discussion.


_________________
No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live as we dream--alone.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness


Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4835
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
In fact, I have had specific people associated with Booktalk.org request discussions of the Bible. I am perfectly willing to do so in an open forum where criticisms of the Bible are also considered. But it doesn't work. The Genesis discussion got bogged down with arguments about day 4. The attempt to discuss Evil Bible stories got bogged down with an argument about the population of the ancient world. Why? The point of the Evil designation of the story had nothing to do with the population but it instantly was siezed on as a means of reinforcing the bedrock position that the Bible is wrong. I know you believe that. So what's the point of beating it. You bring it up and I am going to challenge it so instead of discussing the story, we frustrate everyone. Too bad because by now we could have been halfway through the Bible, instead, we flail around in ad hoc discussions with people who argue against the authencity of the Bible. Too bad too because our discussions would be much more interesting if we could get to the meat.

What is a criticism to you is just an interesting line of inquiry to me. Bottom line, I think: you want to talk about the Bible as it reveals and justifies God's purpose. No one else here that I've heard from has any interest in that. If that isn't true about your viewpoint, tell me then what else you'd want to do in a Bible discussion.


Though proposed by me when I joined Booktalk.org the impetus for the abortive attempt started last winter was not my idea. I was asked for input and to participate.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:15 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4829
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1531
Thanked: 1555 times in 1173 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.


Wright has a strongly hermeneutical approach to the Bible. Balancing the text against historical archaeological evidence provides a real basis for speculation and interpretation. Ignoring the evidence leaves the reader in thrall to delusory traditional fantasies. It makes far more sense for Wright to analyse the evolution of the Abrahamic religions against a scientific archaeological framework, than for traditional theology to stick to the deposit of faith. Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.



The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
geo
Wed Oct 06, 2010 5:30 am
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5455
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1350
Thanked: 1355 times in 1058 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
DWill wrote:
What is a criticism to you is just an interesting line of inquiry to me. Bottom line, I think: you want to talk about the Bible as it reveals and justifies God's purpose. No one else here that I've heard from has any interest in that. If that isn't true about your viewpoint, tell me then what else you'd want to do in a Bible discussion.
stahrwe wrote:
Though proposed by me when I joined Booktalk.org the impetus for the abortive attempt started last winter was not my idea. I was asked for input and to participate.

That's not an answer to my question. If you don't want to answer it, fine. But why should you wonder that no one is interested in a proposed discussion that has no stated purpose or organizing principle?


_________________
No, it is impossible; it is impossible to convey the life-sensation of any given epoch of one's existence--that which makes its truth, its meaning--its subtle penetrating essence. It is impossible. We live as we dream--alone.

Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness


Last edited by DWill on Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:14 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4835
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
Robert Tulip wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.


Wright has a strongly hermeneutical approach to the Bible. Balancing the text against historical archaeological evidence provides a real basis for speculation and interpretation. Ignoring the evidence leaves the reader in thrall to delusory traditional fantasies. It makes far more sense for Wright to analyse the evolution of the Abrahamic religions against a scientific archaeological framework, than for traditional theology to stick to the deposit of faith. Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.


You have to be kidding. Wright exemplifies precisely what one should not do when using a hermeneutical approach to study anything. The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary. In other words, when the Bible refers to bread and fish, barring a COMPELLING reason to think otherwise, it is referring to bread and fish. As pointed out before by me, Genesis contains a straight-forward explanation for the transition from polytheism to monotheism that Abraham underwent. Wright totally ignores the story. Odd since it involves two thirds of the Book of Genesis.

As for faith vs evidence, I suggest that you visit the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:49 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4835
Location: Florida
Thanks: 159
Thanked: 323 times in 277 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: My Thoughts
DWill wrote:
DWill wrote:
What is a criticism to you is just an interesting line of inquiry to me. Bottom line, I think: you want to talk about the Bible as it reveals and justifies God's purpose. No one else here that I've heard from has any interest in that. If that isn't true about your viewpoint, tell me then what else you'd want to do in a Bible discussion.
stahrwe wrote:
Though proposed by me when I joined Booktalk.org the impetus for the abortive attempt started last winter was not my idea. I was asked for input and to participate.

That's not an answer to my question. If you don't want to answer it, fine. But why should you wonder that no one is interested in a proposed discussion that has no stated purpose or organizing principle?


What is the stated purpose of the discussion of The Evolution of God?
It is to discuss the book is it not?
Same with the Bible

1) I have repeatedly explained, in numerous posts, that most of what is posted about the Bible is either distorted or flat out wrong. Often the error is the result of the poster taking some anti-Christian rant at face value without bothering to check the text of the Bible.

2) I would think that given the amount of attention focused on the Bible by BT participants that you would at least read it as you would any other book.

3) I don't expect to spend the time preaching but I will explain the Christian perspective where applicable. It is funny that seems to terrify people.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Wed Oct 06, 2010 8:00 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Gold Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4829
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1531
Thanked: 1555 times in 1173 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote:
The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary.

Truly Stahrwe, you make me laugh. Hermeneutics takes its name from the God Hermes, messenger of Zeus and Apollo. Like the planet Mercury, Hermes flits quickly between sun and earth, as god of communication and language. Put simply, hermeneutics is interpretation, providing the basis to find meaning in texts. As we read the Bible, we ask what the authors really meant by their statements. Jesus Christ instructs us to read parables as pointers to hidden wisdom. So your suggestion that Bible interpretation can be exhausted by a literal reading is absurd. But, granted, you have to posit this absurd argument to be consistent with your creationist fantasies.

Quote:
the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.
Interbane has been remarkably patient in drawing out your ability to ignore rational argument. This "trainwreck" comment is a further example of you re-writing the facts in line with your agenda. But then, literal faith needs blind confidence in order to believe objective falsity, such as the claim that Bible passages make plain sense.



Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:51 pm
Profile Email WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:




Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank