• In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 758 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 3:50 am

My Thoughts

#88: Sept. - Oct. 2010 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
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.

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.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
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?
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
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.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: My Thoughts

Unread post

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
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2199 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: My Thoughts

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
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
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:
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?
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.
Last edited by DWill on Tue Oct 05, 2010 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

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.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

DWill wrote:
stahrwe wrote:
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?
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.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
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

Unread post

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.
User avatar
stahrwe

1I - PLATINUM CONTIBUTOR
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

Unread post

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.
Post Reply

Return to “The Evolution of God - by Robert Wright”