Robert Tulip wrote: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.
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.
the discussion: Epistemology and Biblical Evidence. It proved to be a trainwreck for Interbane.
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.
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.