[_ Old Earth _] Atheist Darwinism vs the Bible "for Christians"

[VaultZero4Me]

I would submit that if it had been translated from one language to another a few times the original meaning of a word could be lost, but the context would give us a clue. That is not the case here. The original has been copied by hand many (thousands?) of times. The scribes were not running copies through a fax machine over and over. If anything has been lost in transcription (I don't think anything has been) it is gone, so how would we know? As for translation, what can be said in one language that cannot be said in any other (given enough space on a page)?

I do not agree with you here in any way, but that would be a new thread.

Again, you prove my point. If my imagination causes me to believe that what is written is not what is meant then I am engaging in hermeneutical subjectivism.

I am confused. Are you saying that it would be wrong to come to a conclusion that the statement "I went to grab a bite to eat." can not be assumed to mean "I went out to eat."

Because, literalll, that means I went somewhere, used my hands, and grabbed a piece of food that had been bitten.

So, by literally following what I was saying you would come to the wrong conclusion of my intent.

Are you prepared to believe that anything written by anyone is literal?

If the literal makes sense and is probable then yes.

"I hopped in my car and flew home as fast as I could."

Literally that does not make sense. Cars don't fly. Therefore using reason, I conclude that likely, it is meant that the person entered their car quickly and very rapidly towards their home.

"I went to the store." the literal is probable.

"That person is nuts." the literal is improbable.

"Ladies and gentlemen, lend me your ear." the literal is improbable.

I missed your answer. Are you ready to take every word in the Bible from the NIV or KJ as literal?

 

[DavidLee]

If the literal makes sense and is probable then yes.

So in order for something to be literal it must be sensible and probable. Who decides? You? What if something makes sense to someone who happens to know more than you about the subject (or the language)? What if something you have deemed improbable has actually happened?

I missed your answer. Are you ready to take every word in the Bible from the NIV or KJ as literal?

Your question does not allow for the answer I have given already.
When you say "literal" do you mean the common, plain, meaning of what is written? Or do you mean each individual word separately is unto itself a meaning only to be determined by your feelings at the time, which will possibly contradict the sentence from which the word is taken?

 

[BobRyan]

You happily continue to quote this passage with the air of one who has discovered an unassailable point.

Well stated sir. That is exactly what I am doing -- and until someone here on the opposing side actually takes the time to "do the math" in SHOWING that my claim is in error -- I have "a winner"!!

And you, sir, continue to miss the point. I repeat this again, exegesis PRESUMES an attempt to view the text objectively, it does not GUARANTEE that that attempt will be objective. You do not have "a winner" (!!), you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation.

Y'ou just defined the subjective methods of eisgesis while also claiming to condemn the objective methods of exegesis.

And of course - you offer nothing better than your well articulated eisegesis as an alternative to exegesis. (predictably).

The point ramains -- the text is sooooo incredibly obvious that BOTH Darwinists AND YEC Christians AGREE on the gap it presents to darwinism.

A more devastating case against the hopeful eisegesis being suggested by those in the Barbarian Christian camp (poster on this message board) could hardly be imagined.

L.K Perhaps you do not understand the crucial difference between objective and subjective; you certainly don't seem to.

OBJECTIVE reality shows itself in extreme cases -- where the point is truly glaringly obvious - in that BOTH SIDES agree to it as in the case of BOTH DARWINISTS and YEC Christians aGREEING to the glaring gap between "FOR IN SIX days the Lord MADE..." vs darwinist evolutionism.

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

i.e. just the "obvious point" being raised in this case.

L.K
[quotec757]If you are "imagining" that the REASON for using such glaringly EASY to see time frames that also blatantly do NOT fit the story-telling of darwinism is that Moses is trying to "teach darwinism in symbols" then FIRST you have to establish that "Moses was known for teaching darwinism".

Get it?

All I get from this is an apparently knee-jerk response by you to any request for you to think outside the narrow terms of reference you set ...
[/quotec757]

Your Avoidance of the point raised is "noted".

Bob said -
You need a substantive basis FROM THE AUTHOR showing that the author was well known for Darwinism -- you don't have it.

Another glaringly obvious point from the "methods of exegesis" so that the wrench-and-bend of the text you are attempting is clearly avoided.

So there you need to "prove" that your wild assertions about the text having some other meaning than what it says needs you to "do the math" rather than simply "repeat the assertion" (a solution you seem to prefer).

DOING the math in this case would be to SHOW that Moses is not teaching the "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..." argument that we all SEE him making in the text!

By "we all" I mean both Darwinists and YEC Christians... I do not mean the christians of Barbarian's POV.

My question has absolutely no relevance to evolutionary theory at all. It addresses subjective interpretation of a subjective text.

That would be eisgesis -- it is what you keep attempting with Exodus 20:8-11 it was what I keep shortcutting with my point that your methods violate the objective principles of exegesis.

It is where you claim the incredibly subjective methodolgy stating that "imagination is sufficient" by contrast.

And yet again, this is not about your certainty as to what Moses wrote, or that Moses did indeed write it;

Imagining that Moses wrote something other than the text that we HAVE is "arguing from the void of data not in evidence".

You do see that -- right?

Your arguments about subjectivity are addressed in the objective methods of exegsis itself.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

And you, sir, continue to miss the point. I repeat this again, exegesis PRESUMES an attempt to view the text objectively, it does not GUARANTEE that that attempt will be objective. You do not have "a winner" (!!), you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation.

Y'ou just defined the subjective methods of eisgesis while also claiming to condemn the objective methods of exegesis.

There are no purely objective methods in exegesis; once more, exegesis presumes objectivity, it does not guarantee it. Subjectivity is unconscious because no one approaches textual analysis free of cultural, linguistic, religious and historical assumptions, biases and pre-existing ideas that drive their analysis. If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.

And of course - you offer nothing better than your well articulated eisegesis as an alternative to exegesis. (predictably).

I have suggested only that exegesis as an objective tool is illusory.

The point ramains -- the text is sooooo incredibly obvious that BOTH Darwinists AND YEC Christians AGREE on the gap it presents to darwinism.

Claiming the text has but one interpretation only demonstrates your unwillingness to admit that it may be susceptible of a different interpretation. You cannot know the mind of the author(s) and the meaning they intended; you can only use your subjective analysis to persuade yourself that you fully understand their minds and the meaning they intended. You have no more idea whether the relationship between the days of creation week and the days of the calendar week referred to in Exodus is symbolic or actual; you only presume that your interpretation of the fact that they are actual is correct. You have no grounds for concluding this otherv than your preference that it be so. And even if you are absolutely correct in your interpretation, all this tells us is what the authors subjectively believed to be so, not what was objectively so.

A more devastating case against the hopeful eisegesis being suggested by those in the Barbarian Christian camp (poster on this message board) could hardly be imagined.

You have an optimistic view of what constitutes a devastating case.

[quote:8ab1a]L.K Perhaps you do not understand the crucial difference between objective and subjective; you certainly don't seem to.

OBJECTIVE reality shows itself in extreme cases -- where the point is truly glaringly obvious - in that BOTH SIDES agree to it as in the case of BOTH DARWINISTS and YEC Christians aGREEING to the glaring gap between "FOR IN SIX days the Lord MADE..." vs darwinist evolutionism.[/quote:8ab1a]
Again I look hopefully for relevant supporting quotations and references. And regardless of such quotations and references being provided, this does not ipso facto establish an objective reality; it only reflects agreement amongst two of many possible opinions on what a particular text may mean. I continue to stress my argument that because something appears 'truly glaringly obvious' to you, this is not definitive proof that your understanding is the only understanding that can possibly be correct.

[quote:8ab1a][quote:8ab1a]If you are "imagining" that the REASON for using such glaringly EASY to see time frames that also blatantly do NOT fit the story-telling of darwinism is that Moses is trying to "teach darwinism in symbols" then FIRST you have to establish that "Moses was known for teaching darwinism".

Get it?

All I get from this is an apparently knee-jerk response by you to any request for you to think outside the narrow terms of reference you set ...
[/quote:8ab1a]

Your Avoidance of the point raised is "noted".[/quote:8ab1a]
Why the quotation marks? Whether the 'time frames' that so exercise you are or are not compliant with evolutionary theory is wholly irrelevant as evidence supporting evolutionary theory or not. There are not but two mutually exclusive alternatives available. Your understanding of the words the author(s) of Exodus used could be entirely correct and yet that is still not evidence that either evolutionary theory is wrong or that the creation days of Genesis were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today; it is only evidence that the author(s) of Exodus believed this to be so.

Bob said -
You need a substantive basis FROM THE AUTHOR showing that the author was well known for Darwinism -- you don't have it.

Another glaringly obvious point from the "methods of exegesis" so that the wrench-and-bend of the text you are attempting is clearly avoided.

For what purpose do I need this? I am not trying to argue that the author(s) of Exodus or any other OT text were or were not well-known for their acceptance of evolutionary theory. This is a strawman of your own making.

So there you need to "prove" that your wild assertions about the text having some other meaning than what it says needs you to "do the math" rather than simply "repeat the assertion" (a solution you seem to prefer).

I have made no 'wild assertions' about the text. I have only questioned the grounds for your assuredness about it and given you wholly valid reasons for why I do so. That you appear to believe there to be some sort of mathematical certainty about exegesis says more about your need for that certainty than anything else.

DOING the math in this case would be to SHOW that Moses is not teaching the "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..." argument that we all SEE him making in the text!

You have no assurance for your conviction that Moses (or whoever wrote these words) was not speaking figuratively when he wrote them.

By "we all" I mean both Darwinists and YEC Christians... I do not mean the christians of Barbarian's POV.

And which 'Darwinists' would these be, then, who see the same as ? Some, many or all 'Darwinists'?

[quote:8ab1a]
My question has absolutely no relevance to evolutionary theory at all. It addresses subjective interpretation of a subjective text.

That would be eisgesis -- it is what you keep attempting with Exodus 20:8-11 it was what I keep shortcutting with my point that your methods violate the objective principles of exegesis.[/quote:8ab1a]
And if you have still failed to grasp my point that exegesis only presumes objectivity rather than guarantees it, then this is a hopeless case. Eisegesis intentionally reads one's own interpretation into the text; exegesis only allows you to persuade yourself that your unconscious prejudices, biases, assumptions and pre-existing ideas can be wholly avoided when analysing text. To which I reply, self-deceiving nonsense.

It is where you claim the incredibly subjective methodolgy stating that "imagination is sufficient" by contrast.

On the contrary, eisegesis at least acknowledges the existence of subjective influences.Are Jewish, Christian and Islamic exegeses of the relevant holy texts all equally valid? Are all exegeses of the Bible by Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars equally valid? Is there a difference in analytical validity between revealed and rational exegesis? Do all those who practice exegesis of biblical text come to the same conclusion?

Imagining that Moses wrote something other than the text that we HAVE is "arguing from the void of data not in evidence".

You do see that -- right?

I only see assertion with an absence of evidence to support it.

Your arguments about subjectivity are addressed in the objective methods of exegsis itself.

My arguments about subjectivity are not addressed by 'the objective methods of exegesis itself' because those objective methods are illusory, a will o' the wisp that you can forever be grasping towards but never managing to grasp.

 

[BobRyan]

And you, sir, continue to miss the point. I repeat this again, exegesis PRESUMES an attempt to view the text objectively, it does not GUARANTEE that that attempt will be objective. You do not have "a winner" (!!), you have a subjective conclusion based on a subjective interpretation.

Y'ou just defined the subjective methods of eisgesis while also claiming to condemn the objective methods of exegesis.

There are no purely objective methods in exegesis; once more, exegesis presumes objectivity,

Interesting assertion Please show us that it has substance.

it does not guarantee it.

That is like saying "the scientific method does not guarantee that every experiment will be successful and flawless therefore it is not an objective method".

Surely you see that.

Subjectivity is unconscious because no one approaches textual analysis free of cultural, linguistic, religious and historical assumptions, biases and pre-existing ideas that drive their analysis.

Hence the need for exegesis "or something even better".

So far you seem to embrace neither -- choosing to cling to the least objective instead -- eisegesis.

(which of course is the default once you reject exegesis)

If you think otherwise you are deluding yourself.

Bob said

The point ramains -- the text is sooooo incredibly obvious that BOTH Darwinists AND YEC Christians AGREE on the gap it presents to darwinism.

That is a pretty hard "confirming fact" to get around -- wouldn't you agree?

It is going far beyond "I assert" and "I imagine" and "I suppose" it is going to "SEE LOOK both Darwinists and non-Darwinists are AGREEING on this one glaringly obvious point!"

(I love stating the obvious -- as you may have noticed)

L.K
Claiming the text has but one interpretation only demonstrates your unwillingness to admit that it may be susceptible of a different interpretation.

Maybe..might be...could be - suggestions are not nearly as compelling as the confirming OBJECTIVE fact I just stated above where find AGREEMENT between both darwinists (Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Huxley...) and YEC Christians on the incredibly obvious statements of scripture.

L.K
You cannot know the mind of the author(s) and the meaning they intended;

Really? Do you have an example from Exodus 20 that shows your assertion to be true?

oops -- or is this just "assertion following assertion"??

Notice that the entire point of Exegesis (the objective methods) is to discover the meaning of the author - to discover their intent by LOOKING at what they wrote.. by NOTICING the details regarding the way they treat the SAME subject in the SAME book or chapter writing to the SAME group of readers.

I.e... "paying attention to the details".

The very things you seem most anxious to avoid.

Without exegesis " you can only use your subjective analysis to persuade yourself that you fully understand their minds and the meaning they intended" or in your case to "wildly speculate about infinte vague possibilities".

L.K.
You have no more idea whether the relationship between the days of creation week and the days of the calendar week referred to in Exodus is symbolic or actual;

Well not until I actually READ the text!

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

I think you and I BOTH AGREE that this text is incredibly simple and direct and that children at the 2, 3rd, 4th grade reading level have no problems understanding the words and simple sentences just as they read in the text.

You love to eisegete into the text all the vagaries needed by darwinist dogma -- something those children would not be doing and then you attack exegesis to protect your efforts to employ transparent eisegesis in a very fanciful imaginative -- "Who knows" maybe Moses was preaching darwinism - kinda way, when it comes to the Word of God and Darwinism "has a need".

But then that is the problem with our discussion - In order to save darwinism you have to claim to have no confidence about KNOWING what the Word of God actually says -- and you compound that "can't know what the Bible is saying" argument by attacking the most objective method known to mankind for determining that answer -- exegesis.

L.K
You cannot know the mind of the author(s) and the meaning they intended;

Seeing you step off that last cliff in a true "sacrifice all for Darwinism" kinda way regarding the Word of God - the discerning reader notices this "can't know what the Bible says" idea in your posts and then asks "How then do you remain Christian at all?"

Without the bible -- without any claim to know what even the most glaringly obvious portions of the text "actually say" -- what do you have faith in?? "you"??

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

There are no purely objective methods in exegesis; once more, exegesis presumes objectivity, it does not guarantee it.

That is like saying "the scientific method does not guarantee that every experiment will be successful and flawless therefore it is not an objective method".

Surely you see that.

Your point is flawed. The scientific method is based on the concept of falsifiability; please show me how exegesis of biblical text can be falsified. Please show me how you can assess and measure the intent of the writer(s) of biblical text without using subjective assumptions - guesswork, indeed - as to what those intentions were. Please show me how exegesis guarantees objectivity rather than just presuming it. Please demonstrate that exegesis of OT text by different religions and different denominations within individual religions shows full agreement on the meaning of that text. I have asked elsewhere if exegesis of biblical text by Jewish, Catholic, Protestant and Orthdox scholars can be shown to demonstrate such agreement and, if it cannot, why this might be.

[quote:29a11]Subjectivity is unconscious because no one approaches textual analysis free of cultural, linguistic, religious and historical assumptions, biases and pre-existing ideas that drive their analysis.

Hence the need for exegesis "or something even better".

So far you seem to embrace neither -- choosing to cling to the least objective instead -- eisegesis.

(which of course is the default once you reject exegesis)[/quote:29a11]
You continue to claim without demonstrating evidence for your claim that exegesis avoids the subjective influences I believe it is victim to given the nature of the individuals carrying it out.

[quote:29a11]Bob said

The point ramains -- the text is sooooo incredibly obvious that BOTH Darwinists AND YEC Christians AGREE on the gap it presents to darwinism.

That is a pretty hard "confirming fact" to get around -- wouldn't you agree?

It is going far beyond "I assert" and "I imagine" and "I suppose" it is going to "SEE LOOK both Darwinists and non-Darwinists are AGREEING on this one glaringly obvious point!"

(I love stating the obvious -- as you may have noticed)[/quote:29a11]
I cannot agree to something you have not shown, but only asserted.

[quote:29a11]L.K
Claiming the text has but one interpretation only demonstrates your unwillingness to admit that it may be susceptible of a different interpretation.

Maybe..might be...could be - suggestions are not nearly as compelling as the confirming OBJECTIVE fact I just stated above where find AGREEMENT between both darwinists (Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Huxley...) and YEC Christians on the incredibly obvious statements of scripture.[/quote:29a11]
You claim this, but you don't show it. Nor do you show that anyone agrees at all with your exegesis of Exodus as an overwhelmingly persuasive argument as to what constitutes a day in the creation story recounted in Genesis.

[quote:29a11]L.K
You cannot know the mind of the author(s) and the meaning they intended;

Really? Do you have an example from Exodus 20 that shows your assertion to be true?[/quote:29a11]
You want me to show how I cannot know the the intent of author(s) dead for millennia by giving you an example from Exodus 20 demonstrating how I cannot be sure of knowing the intent of whoever wrote it? Well, insofar as I cannot be certain whether day is used entirely metaphorically, entirely literally, or perhaps in both usages in Exodus 20, I cannot therefore be certain that I know the intent of the writer(s). But then I've told you this before. Several times. I think it more proper that, as you claim that you can be sure of this knowledge that you show some evidence to support that certainty.

oops -- or is this just "assertion following assertion"??

No, it's just an attempt to get you to acknowledge the complexity of literary analysis and that it is difficult to be certain that any given understanding is wholly correct. Which is why we look for evidence beyond text to help support our conclusions about that text.

Notice that the entire point of Exegesis (the objective methods) is to discover the meaning of the author - to discover their intent by LOOKING at what they wrote.. by NOTICING the details regarding the way they treat the SAME subject in the SAME book or chapter writing to the SAME group of readers.

You seem to think that I fail to understand what exegesis claims to be able to achieve and how it claims to be able to do this. I understand this fully. I do not accept that the claim can be justified, however, because both the writer(s) and the analyst(s) interact with the text and that interaction is necessarily subjective. You are entitled to say, I think this is more likely a correct understanding of the text than that; what you cannot say is, This is most certainly the one correct understanding of the text.

I.e... "paying attention to the details".

The very things you seem most anxious to avoid.

Without exegesis " you can only use your subjective analysis to persuade yourself that you fully understand their minds and the meaning they intended" or in your case to "wildly speculate about infinte vague possibilities".

And yet we find Pope Leo XIII warning Catholics against the soundness of Protestant exegesis:

Though the studies of non-Catholics, used with prudence, may sometimes be of use to the Catholic student, he should, nevertheless, bear well in mind -- as the Fathers also teach in numerous passages -- that the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.

Quoted at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05692b.htm

While the detailed discussion of exegesis provided at that site warns of the variations in results that supposedly objective analysis provides:

The exegetical results flowing from the supposed clearness of the Bible may be inferred from the fact that one century after the rise of the Reformation Bossuet could give to the world two volumes entitled, "A History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches". A Protestant theologian, S. Werenfels, sets forth the same truth in a telling epigram:

Hic liber est in quo sua quærit dogmata quisque,
Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua,

which may be rendered in an English paraphrase:

Men ope this book, their favourite creed in mind;
Each seeks his own, and each his own doth find.

[quote:29a11]L.K.
You have no more idea whether the relationship between the days of creation week and the days of the calendar week referred to in Exodus is symbolic or actual;

Well not until I actually READ the text![/quote:29a11]
Revealing your pre-existing assumptions again.

I think you and I BOTH AGREE that this text is incredibly simple and direct and that children at the 2, 3rd, 4th grade reading level have no problems understanding the words and simple sentences just as they read in the text.

I agree that young children have a very limited grasp of the techniques of literary analysis and the complexity inherent in attempting an understanding of the meaning intended by long dead writers from a different, pre-scientific culture using a language different from the one in which they are reading the text for themselves. I have also yet to see you present any confirming evidence for concluding that the use of 'day' in the verses you persist in quoting is not metaphorical in the one sense and literal in the other.

You love to eisegete into the text all the vagaries needed by darwinist dogma -- something those children would not be doing and then you attack exegesis to protect your efforts to employ transparent eisegesis in a very fanciful imaginative -- "Who knows" maybe Moses was preaching darwinism - kinda way, when it comes to the Word of God and Darwinism "has a need".

Again, all I have tried to do is point to the lack of absolute certainty that you claim exegesis provides in the your understanding of the verses in question. Let me say this yet again, you may very well be correct in your understanding of the verses, but you may also be wrong. Unless you can provide some evidence external to the Bible verses in question that support your conclusions, there is no way of knowing for sure. There is certainly no way that you can assume that, even if your interpretation of the verses in question is entirely correct, that this somehow establishes without question that the days of creation in Genesis were actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them today; all you will have established is that that is what the writer(s) believed.

But then that is the problem with our discussion - In order to save darwinism you have to claim to have no confidence about KNOWING what the Word of God actually says -- and you compound that "can't know what the Bible is saying" argument by attacking the most objective method known to mankind for determining that answer -- exegesis.

I have no interest in 'saving [D]arwiinism' in this discussion. This discussion says nothing about whether evolutionary theory is right, wrong, or partly right and partly wrong, except in your own mind. All I have been seeking to address is the uncertain grounds for your certainty.

[quote:29a11]L.K
You cannot know the mind of the author(s) and the meaning they intended;

Seeing you step off that last cliff in a true "sacrifice all for Darwinism" kinda way regarding the Word of God - the discerning reader notices this "can't know what the Bible says" idea in your posts and then asks "How then do you remain Christian at all?"

Without the bible -- without any claim to know what even the most glaringly obvious portions of the text "actually say" -- what do you have faith in?? "you"??[/quote:29a11]
Have you yet to grasp the fact that because someone disagrees with an eccentric, literal interpretation of a supposedly non-errant OT as the invariable word of God, and prefers to understand it for what it is - the imperfect understanding of what may well be divine revelation interpreted by imperfect human beings from a pre-literate, pre-scientific culture through oral and written tradition over thousands of years - this does not necessarily make them not Christian, unless you are an adherent of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. The teachings of Christ are not dependent upon the literal truth of the OT; most Christians understand this.

 

[Free]

The teachings of Christ are not dependent upon the literal truth of the OT; most Christians understand this.

Actually, a non-literal interpretation of the OT, undermines most, if not all, of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity' many Christians do not understand this. Of course, this depends on which parts are deemed literal and which are not.

 

[lordkalvan]

The teachings of Christ are not dependent upon the literal truth of the OT; most Christians understand this.

Actually, a non-literal interpretation of the OT, undermines most, if not all, of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity' many Christians do not understand this. Of course, this depends on which parts are deemed literal and which are not.

I am interested in what constitute 'the fundamental beliefs of Christianity'. I am also interested in your qualifying sentence as to what parts of the OT may be deemed literal, what parts not and what your criteria are for deciding between the two.

 

[Free]

I am interested in what constitute 'the fundamental beliefs of Christianity'.

Well, there are many so I will give just a few, in no particular order:

1. A triune God that is both transcendent and immanent
2. God created ex nihlo
3. Man is a special creation, created in the image of God
4. Man gave up his rightful place in creation through sin and such is fallen and in need of reconcilation to God
5. Jesus the Christ, God Incarnate, was born of a virgin, crucified and physically rose again to make available salvation to all mankind
6. Those who believe in Jesus, who he is and all he did, will inherit eternal life

I am also interested in your qualifying sentence as to what parts of the OT may be deemed literal, what parts not and what your criteria are for deciding between the two.

That is a massive undertaking but you can get some of your answer from my points above. I am interested in your answers for the same and it would probably be easier for you give yours and we can deal with your points as they come up.

 

[Deep Thought]

The teachings of Christ are not dependent upon the literal truth of the OT; most Christians understand this.

Actually, a non-literal interpretation of the OT, undermines most, if not all, of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity' many Christians do not understand this. Of course, this depends on which parts are deemed literal and which are not.

I am interested in what constitute 'the fundamental beliefs of Christianity'. I am also interested in your qualifying sentence as to what parts of the OT may be deemed literal, what parts not and what your criteria are for deciding between the two.

Good luck. I've tried asking the same question many times on this forum, and can't get any straight answers. It seems the answer is that "I interpret the parts of the Bible literally and non-literally that suits my beliefs"

 

[Free]

Good luck. I've tried asking the same question many times on this forum, and can't get any straight answers. It seems the answer is that "I interpret the parts of the Bible literally and non-literally that suits my beliefs"

And as I stated already: you all do the same and yet do not have to justify yourselves while we have to justify everything. I am quite amazed at the double standard that many of you use and the superiority complex is quite obvious. It seems as though whoever believes in evolution has the right to interpret the Bible as they wish and then tell those who study the Bible where they have gone wrong. You claim superiority in theology because you think you are superior in science. I suppose that what one gets from reading Dawkins.

That's unfortunate.

 

[jmm9683]

Good luck. I've tried asking the same question many times on this forum, and can't get any straight answers. It seems the answer is that "I interpret the parts of the Bible literally and non-literally that suits my beliefs"

And as I stated already: you all do the same and yet do not have to justify yourselves while we have to justify everything. I am quite amazed at the double standard that many of you use and the superiority complex is quite obvious. It seems as though whoever believes in evolution has the right to interpret the Bible as they wish and then tell those who study the Bible where they have gone wrong. You claim superiority in theology because you think you are superior in science. I suppose that what one gets from reading Dawkins.

That's unfortunate.

Are you kidding me? Every denomination interprets the Bible as they wish and tells others that they are wrong. They all believe that their interpretation is correct. Each one has a superiority complex.

 

[Deep Thought]

Good luck. I've tried asking the same question many times on this forum, and can't get any straight answers. It seems the answer is that "I interpret the parts of the Bible literally and non-literally that suits my beliefs"

And as I stated already: you all do the same and yet do not have to justify yourselves while we have to justify everything. I am quite amazed at the double standard that many of you use and the superiority complex is quite obvious. It seems as though whoever believes in evolution has the right to interpret the Bible as they wish and then tell those who study the Bible where they have gone wrong. You claim superiority in theology because you think you are superior in science. I suppose that what one gets from reading Dawkins.

Apart from some historical events that can be corroborated by other sources, I take the Bible to be non-literal in the same way as you would probably take the ancient Greek stories of Jason and the Argonauts to be non-literal. That is the only logical and scientific way to view the Bible.

My point is not to tell people who study the Bible where they have gone wrong, but to point out that anyone who uses the Bible to support particular moral or scientific viewpoints dogmatically, obviously doesn't have an open mind to all the various theological interpretations.

 

[BobRyan]

Apart from some historical events that can be corroborated by other sources, I take the Bible to be non-literal in the same way as you would probably take the ancient Greek stories of Jason and the Argonauts to be non-literal. That is the only logical and scientific way to view the Bible.

My point is not to tell people who study the Bible where they have gone wrong, but to point out that anyone who uses the Bible to support particular moral or scientific viewpoints dogmatically, obviously doesn't have an open mind to all the various theological interpretations.

Anyone using greek storytelling as an authorotative source for history or morals is being silly. The Atheist view of the bible would be the same. But why in the world would atheists expect Christians to ALSO take an atheist approach to the Bible?? That too is silly.

Once one has TAKEN that atheist approach to the bible -- there is no longer the "need" to bend and twist, wrench and misconstrue the text as L.K does seeking to bring it to his Darwinist usages.

For after all - WHY try to MAKE the text into darwinism -- it would be like trying to argue that Homer was writing "all Darwinism all the time" it is pointless. Who cares if Homer was not promoting darwinism? Just leave the text alone.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Good luck. I've tried asking the same question many times on this forum, and can't get any straight answers. It seems the answer is that "I interpret the parts of the Bible literally and non-literally that suits my beliefs"

And as I stated already: you all do the same and yet do not have to justify yourselves while we have to justify everything. I am quite amazed at the double standard that many of you use and the superiority complex is quite obvious. It seems as though whoever believes in evolution has the right to interpret the Bible as they wish and then tell those who study the Bible where they have gone wrong. You claim superiority in theology because you think you are superior in science. I suppose that what one gets from reading Dawkins.

That's unfortunate.

Indeed for the compromise of Christian-Darwinism (A compromise even Darwin could not stomach in all good conscience) the only "solution" is to bend the text in an "all eisegesis all the time" kinda way - any time "Darwinism NEEDS it" and to attack the objective methods of Exegesis as often as possible.

It is not too surprising then to find that "that is exactly what they are doing here".

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There are no purely objective methods in exegesis; once more, exegesis presumes objectivity, it does not guarantee it.

That is like saying "the scientific method does not guarantee that every experiment will be successful and flawless therefore it is not an objective method".

Surely you see that.

Your point is flawed. The scientific method is based on the concept of falsifiability; please show me how exegesis of biblical text can be falsified.

In your every post you show that you do not even know what Exegesis IS!

I have to tell you that among Bible believing Christians the so-called "Christian" darwinists are not only viewed has having a glaring lapse in logic -- but they are generally viewed as being Biblically illiterate or at best "uninformed".

While you are one of the few -- if not the ONLY - so called "Christian" darwinist that WILL attempt to defend your position on a Bible thread like this one -- still your lack of understanding of the methods of exegesis is only reinforcing that perception. I urge you to reconsider your approach. For example -- would you like to open a thread on what Exegesis IS in the BIBLe area of this message board? ( I suggest that so that you can see that not only are the objective principles of Exegesis recognized and admitted to by all Christians in all groups but so also is the global condemnation of your "all eisegesis all the time" solution for Darwinism - the idea of "Attacking exegesis" is not accepted by any Christian denominations that I know of -- and I have yet to even SEE an argument FOR it that actually speaks to the DETAILS of what exegesis and then tries to discredit them one by one... and that includes all of your efforts to merely "assume" it is error)

Please show me how you can assess and measure the intent of the writer(s) of biblical text

errr... umm "Exegesis".

It is like the two party system and 3 branches of government in the U.S where the ASSUMPTION is that a monopoly a dictatorship eventually highlights the self-ambition of those in charge so a "balancing system" is needed.

Exegesis ASSUMES that each person will be as devoted to eisegeting their OWN pet ideas into the text as YOU are so it sets up boundary rules to prevent it.

Get it?

We are not talking about "proving the Bible right" when we speak to the subject of exegesis -- rather we are talking about "KNOWING what it SAYS first before you declare it to be corrupt as you do with Genesis or before you claim it supports your views -- as you do with Exodus 20:8-11".

See?

what METHODS would have to be USED to go the direction of OBJECTIVITY instead of your patently all-eisegesis-all-the-time direction?

1. Set your "needs" for DArwinism aside. Let the Bible "interpret itself"
2. SEE who the author is and who the first order primary intended audience IS.
3. Given that context how is the framing of the words in the text DESIGNED to appeal to THOSE readers? What is the writer leading someone with THEIR context to think? The same word in the same paragraph to the same readers can not simply be "spun around and around" as your eisegetical needs may dictate. When you see yourself doing that -- you are headed down the a blind alley.
4. What is the context for the chapter and the book?
5. How does the SAME author use the SAME concept in his other writings?
6. How do OTHER Bible authors use those SAMe concepts in their writings?

You are constantly stuck failing at steps 1, 2 and 3. While being transparent enough about your need for eisegsis that you also ATTACK exegesis.

Please show me how exegesis guarantees objectivity rather than just presuming it.

As I said - and as you seem to be zeroing in on the problem... We need a subject thread on Exegesis in the Bible area since it is not really a "Science" discussion.

Please demonstrate that exegesis of OT text by different religions and different denominations within individual religions shows full agreement on the meaning of that text.

That is like saying "Prove that the 3 branches of government are BETTER than a dictatorship by SHOWING that all parties always agree all the time".

Surely the transparent nature of your flawed argument is available even to the one making it.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Anyone using greek storytelling as an authorotative source for history or morals is being silly. The Atheist view of the bible would be the same. But why in the world would atheists expect Christians to ALSO take an atheist approach to the Bible?? That too is silly.

Once one has TAKEN that atheist approach to the bible -- there is no longer the "need" to bend and twist, wrench and misconstrue the text as L.K does seeking to bring it to his Darwinist usages.....

Nice piece of ignoring the substance of my arguments and focussing on your own narrow view of how they should be understood. Please point to one instance where I have 'ben[t] and twist[ed], wrench[ed] and misconstrue[d] the text .... to bring it to [my] Darwinist usages'. All I have done is to question your certainty about particular Exodus verses and asked for some support for your conclusions.

That you have been unable to provide such support, that you simply repeat again and again the same weak argument as if simple repetition will in some way strengthen it, and that you are now reduced to dismissing my disagreement with your argument as part of some 'Darwinist' plot to suborn Christianity is farcical.

There are, as you well know, Christians, Christian ministers and Christian scientists - some of them devout conservative Christians - who have no difficulty in understanding that the theory of evolution is in and of itself no threat to Christianity. It may well threaten your comfortable, idiosyncratic view of a world seen through the blurred lenses of creationism, but the loss you endure in failing to understand the awesome magnificence of the Universe is your own.

 

[BobRyan]

Subject thread started as apparently you have determined that it needed.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33061#p392276

This is a reformatted and edited version of that last post I did on Exegesis -- open invitation to see just how widespread your notion of "rejecting exegesis" is -- and conversely how widely accepted my statements on the objectivity of Exegesis is -- (in case you have imagined to yourself that I make this up).

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Anyone using greek storytelling as an authorotative source for history or morals is being silly. The Atheist view of the bible would be the same. But why in the world would atheists expect Christians to ALSO take an atheist approach to the Bible?? That too is silly.

Once one has TAKEN that atheist approach to the bible -- there is no longer the "need" to bend and twist, wrench and misconstrue the text as L.K does seeking to bring it to his Darwinist usages.....

Nice piece of ignoring the substance of my arguments and focussing on your own narrow view of how they should be understood. Please point to one instance where I have 'ben[t] and twist[ed], wrench[ed] and misconstrue[d] the text .... to bring it to [my] Darwinist usages'.

Well hmmm let me see...

Ex 20
8 ""Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 "" Six days you shall labor and do all your work,
10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.
11 "" For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

"SIX days you shall labor ... for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."

For starters.

BTW - I made a mistake about the OHR.EDU guys (Orthodox Rabbis claiming Darwinism BUT ALSO not bending the text of Exodus 20 to FIT darwinism) being the only view among Orthodox Rabbis.

Apparently the ALLEXPERTS site of Orthodox Rabbis ALSO does not bend-and-wrench Ex 20 to "Fit Darwinism" -- but they also "dont' preach Darwinism" as it turns out. So while they do not ALL agree on DArwinism they apparently ALL agree on the exegesis of Ex 20:8-11.

All I have done is to question your certainty about particular Exodus verses and asked for some support for your conclusions.

For the sake of "clarity" -- less smoke and mirrors -- the argument was that in making your wild case about Ex 20:8-11 you should be USING the accepted objective methods of Exegesis to at least have SOME credibility that you are not merely "piling on assertion on top of assertion" in the vain eisegesis of trying to get Darwinism out of Exodus 20:8-11 -- nor anything compatible to it.

That you have been unable to provide such support, that you simply repeat again and again the same weak argument

How is it that the appeal to "objectivity" is weak and your all-eisegesis-all-the-time subjectivity is anything like a strong argument?

Where do you even come up with that?

There are, as you well know, Christians, Christian ministers and Christian scientists - some of them devout conservative Christians - who have no difficulty in understanding that the theory of evolution is in and of itself no threat to Christianity.

This is back to your "somebody else figured it out some place I just don't know where they actually did the math to show their work" argument AS IF "other people believe it and I like them" is a good argument in your favor.

It is not.

The alchemists could make that same kind of argument in the dark ages.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Subject thread started as apparently you have determined that it needed.

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=33061#p392276

This is a reformatted and edited version of that last post I did on Exegesis -- open invitation to see just how widespread your notion of "rejecting exegesis" is -- and conversely how widely accepted my statements on the objectivity of Exegesis is -- (in case you have imagined to yourself that I make this up).

Your linked post fails to address any of the points I have made except to repeat your own claims regarding the objective certainty of exegesis. That mutiple religions and multiple denominations within individual religions can exegete the same texts with different conclusions - different conclusions that you seem to admit to - is sufficient grounds for my argument that exegesis only presumes objectivity and does not guarantee it. Nothing you have posted in the link suggests otherwise.