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.stahrwe wrote:Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.
-
In total there are 15 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 15 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 851 on Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:30 am
My Thoughts
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: My Thoughts
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: My Thoughts
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?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.
Last edited by DWill on Wed Oct 06, 2010 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
- stahrwe
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 166 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: My Thoughts
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.Robert Tulip wrote: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.stahrwe wrote:Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.
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.
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
- stahrwe
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 166 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: My Thoughts
What is the stated purpose of the discussion of The Evolution of God?DWill wrote: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?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.
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.
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: My Thoughts
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.stahrwe wrote:The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary.
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.the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:27 pm
- 14
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
Re: My Thoughts
stahrwe wrote: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.Robert Tulip wrote: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.stahrwe wrote:Wright ignores hermeneutics completely with respect to the Bible.
As for faith vs evidence, I suggest that you visit the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.
Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.
- Robert Tulip
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6502
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
- 18
- Location: Canberra
- Has thanked: 2721 times
- Been thanked: 2665 times
- Contact:
Re: My Thoughts
Are you suggesting that I make claims that are not backed by evidence? Examples?Star Burst wrote:Odd you should say that since the very religion you so blindly accept does the same thing. Pot calling the kettle black again.....Robert Tulip wrote:Orthodox faith provides a set of teachings that is grounded in imagination rather than evidence.
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
Re: My Thoughts
Since you insist on taking that as astronomically true, what surprise is there to this? You miss out on the beauty and deeper meaning of this story by having to defend it as fact.stahrwe wrote: The Genesis discussion got bogged down with arguments about day 4.
You're so extremely defensive about any statement in the Bible not being taken literally--even if it might lead to a richer meaning--that you see only intent to prove the Bible "wrong." Why didn't you just say in the first place that you didn't care about the question of population accuracy, that it was irrelevant to the larger meaning of these chapters? Then the discussion would have stayed more focused. My only reason for bringing that up was that it related to the perspective and bias of the writers of that part of the Bible. I've just brought up again with that last sentence why discussion between people who are so far apart on the basic assumptions is pointless.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.
Last edited by DWill on Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:20 am, edited 2 times in total.
- stahrwe
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 am
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 166 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
Re: My Thoughts
I did not say that a literal interpretation exhausts the wisdom of the Bible. The rule I cited was just one of many tools included in a hermeneutic approach.Robert Tulip wrote: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.stahrwe wrote:The foundation of hermeneutics is that one a passage makes plain sense, no other sense is necessary.
the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.
This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion. This is a common tactic and is a total diversion. It is intended to put the defenders of faith off balance and claim a higher ground. I showed that for what it was and introduced evidence, including evidence external to the Bible which, among other things demostrated that the Bible had things right. Instead of discussing the points, Interbane insisted on attempting in post after post to discredit the Bible. He never provided any evidence in support of his dismissal, just vague claims that the Bible had been revised so much it couldn't be trusted. It turns out that the Bible was accurate in the examples I provided but again, instead of discussing same it was post after tedious post of the same thing by Interbane. But the truly laughable thing is that after he impedes the discussion, and stuffs the thread with repetitious criticisms, I am the one who is accused of being dogmatic. This reminds me of the reaction the Pharisees had to Lazarus.robert tulip wrote: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.
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
Sum n = -1/12
n=1
where n are natural numbers.
- geo
-
- pets endangered by possible book avalanche
- Posts: 4780
- Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
- 15
- Location: NC
- Has thanked: 2198 times
- Been thanked: 2200 times
Re: My Thoughts
Stahrwe, are you saying that yours is a faith-based position?stahrwe wrote:
This is precisely what I was talking about and why, with your mindset, you, Interbane, Geo, Johnsons1010, et al. will never progress passed the DK effect. Interbane insisted on attempting to discredit the Bible and therefore exclude it from the discussion. This is a common tactic and is a total diversion. It is intended to put the defenders of faith off balance and claim a higher ground. . . .
-Geo
Question everything
Question everything