Jump to content
IGNORED

Debate on Interpretation


Matthitjah

Recommended Posts

Guest shiloh357
They create a context from which to understand the reasoning behind the stories in the Torah and the levitical law. Without this context one could use the Torah to show that God is this vengeful, wrathful, sadistic God. But by contrasting the God of the Bible with paganism God's true character and nature comes shining through the text as a personal, loving all powerful God.
That is patently false. The Bible reveals enough about God's love in the Torah that an honest person who reads the text with no in an unprejudiced manner can see the love and mercy of God in the Festivals, the sacrificial systems, the laws of the Torah concerning the care of the poor, orphans, widows and honor of one's parents, as well commandments about mercy, accurate and fair monetary compensation, and the overal commandments to love one's neighbor as one's self. The Torah, focuses far more on love, forgiveness, redemption, salvation, mercy and grace and spiritual freedom than any other ancient, contemporaneous religious document.

Again there is much confusion on the word "literal" which in your mind means "the intent of the author".
No, there is no confusion. In fact, YOU are the ONLY person living in that confusion. So far, other board members who saw what I wrote in the previous thread understand exactly what I meant without confusion. YOU are trying to muddy the waters about what literal means. Anyone who has any real knowledge about how genuine literary analsys works understands that the entire purpose of interpretation is to understand the ideas the author is trying to convey. What would be the point of writing anything if everyone is simply going to ignore your ideas and make your words into something you did not intend???

You make the assumption that your interpretation is correct and therefore the intent of the author.
Wrong. There is no such thing as "my interpretation." That is figment of your imagination. There is only ONE interpretation and it is the meaning the author supplies and nothing more.

So by that definition of course if we eliminate the intent of the author we lose the prophetic dynamic. If you eliminate context you eliminate the prophetic dynamic in the text.
Only if the context is prophetic in nature.

You cannot understand the intent of the author without understanding the context. Which is my whole point.
Establishing context is a bit more complicated than just reading extrabiblical religious documents. You have both the immediate context as well as the historical/cultural context. It is in the immediate context that we find the author's intent. The peripheral socio-political, religious climate is useful in understanding the times and surrounding evirons that flavor the biblical text, but they do not provide any assistance in establishing the intent of the author. Only the immediate context reveals that. It involves, following the author's line of thought. There is where his intent is revealed.

Evidence of symbols and what constitutes a symbol and whether or not a text is using symbolism - we can delve into.
The Bible is unambiguous about its use of symbolism. Part of the problem here is that liberal approaches to the Bible try to create mysteries and confusion where none exist.

Understanding the pagan sects, the traditions and ideas around the Jews at the time greatly increases the

Understanding of the scriptures as does understanding Greek philosophies and judaism helps in understanding of the new testament.

No, not really. If you want to understand the New Testament, you have to read it. Greek philosphies and judaism are only helpful in grasping the surrounding climate in which God breathed the New Testament into the hearts and minds of his apostles.

This is Biblical hermenutics - I do not speak or write Hebrew so I must rely on translations of the text for grammatical hermenutics
I am sorry, but what you have presented thus far, is NOT biblical hermeneutics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
But all throughout God's Word these apostles and prophets are preaching against paganism and secular philosophy. (and Jesus himself preached against certain bankrupt Jewish ideologies).
No, what Jesus preached against was the religious bigotry and hypocrisy, as well as the ostentatious self-righteousness of certain leaders in Israel. Jesus never preached against the Jewish religion or their traditions, only the hypocritical way they applied them. Jesus even made references to the Talmud to support his arguments.

In understanding what these prophets and apostles were up against we have to understand these cultures to understand the context.
Your above statement shows that you already do not have a grasp on what they were preaching against or what they were up against.

In our modern culture child sacrifice to God seems so repugnant that any God that would ask his followers to sacrifice a child is not a God we would follow. But understanding the context that the pagan cultures around sacrificed humans regularly, we can have a different mindset as to why Abraham would comply and how different our God that we serve is so much more powerful than the pagan deities.
Wrong. Here is quick example of why your presupposotion is wrong. Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac at God's command was not because human sacrifice was so prevalent that it did not have a negative effect on Abraham.

Rather, the biblical reason, the reason the Bible gives is that God had already, years before, entered into an eteranal covenant with Abraham in promising him a son from whom would spring a great nation. It was a blood covenant that in Abraham's culture could not be broken. God used the strongest covenant known to Abraham and his people to show how serious He was in keeping that promise. Abraham's faith was based on that Covenant. The Bible says this:

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.".Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

That faith was built on a blood covenant tradition that was very prevalent in Abraham's day. And it was on that basis, on the foundation of the Word of God given to Abraham and sealed in the blood of animals (not humans) that Abraham had the faith to lay Isaac on the altar.

See, THAT is how we use historical/cultural context. You are focusing on what the pagans did to understand Abraham's actions, but if you had any REAL skill in the area of determing historical context, you would have understood that it was a covenant tradition that is the platform upon which the story of the binding of Isaac rests.

Interpretation is subjective. It is subject to the interpretor, to the context that is applied.
Wrong. Interpretation is objective and is subject to the intent of author. It is interpretator's responsibility to ascertain the intent of the author.

The most valid (in my opinion) interpretations are those that seek to understand the author and his intent through the use of historical and cultural context.
Sorry, but it is clear that historical context is something you really don't understand, as shown above.

Liberal higher criticism forces you to look at the text from a different angle and therefore challenges your "literal" view that you understand what the author is saying so you automatically deem it unworthy of your " genuine Christian" stamp of approval. And you are entitled to that opinion.
Liberal Higher Criticism is predicated on the Bible as a human document, not a divinely inspired documents. It's challenge to the literal understanding of the text stems from a lack of faith in the plenary inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Higher Criticism is really not genuine Christian scholarship and is wholly unreliable as a means of arriving at an accurate understanding of Scripture.

No there are partial truths. For instance that Jesus was "all man". This is true, but it is not all truth it is only partially true as Jesus is also "all God". This apparent paradox is at the core of our faith. This is only one of the many antinomies that make up our faith. This truth is not crystal clear or even comprehensible. Some things we will never know until heaven.
This is another example of you trying to create confusion where none exists. '

The Bible presents Jesus as 100% man and 100% God. That is the truth about Jesus. It is not an antinomy. That would make it contradiction. The fact that something is beyond our comprehension doesn't make it less true. The Bible offers it self as absolute truth. That is basic Christianity. It may not agree with Higher Criticism, but it is basic, biblical, Christian doctrine, nonetheless.

The Gospel message is clear. But there are thousands of commentaries out there for helping understand the Text. There have been debates, councils to discuss the meaning of the text and even wars over the disagreement of diverging views of scripture. These different interpretations come from viewing the scripture in different contexts.
It is actually far more complictated than that. Debates sprung up because heretics tried to impose their errant doctrines onto the text of Scripture. Many of those debates were made necessary because some people didn't like the way the Bible was written or what it taught.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Liberal scholarship does not recognize Moses as the author (at least not the only author) of Genesis. The author(s) who wrote the Torah wrote it in a context that would be understood by those that read it.
Liberal "scholarship" (it hardly deserves the title of scholarship) teaches that the Torah was written by four sources called JPED (Yahwist, Priestly, Elohist, and Deutrocanical). It espouses the view that the Torah was not complieted until sometime during the life of Ezra, AFTER the return from Babylon. It is a theory that has no basis in fact and is rejected by competent, credible Rabbincal and Christian scholarship.

I am not here standing alone on an island with my beliefs. I stand with theologians, scientists, historians, and entire denominations within the body of Christ who view the Creation account in the same way.
More accurately, you stand with liberal, higher critics who employ sloppy theology/hermeneutics. Just because you can find someone to repeat the same errant information, doesn't make it true, although I can see how it might provide a false sense of security.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.".Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. (Hebrews 11:17-19)

certainly this story shows the faith in God that Abraham had shown and that the blood covenant was one in which he could put his trust in. In contrast with the deities in other cultures who simply did not hold up there end of the

bargain. However the greater moral question is not answered in the text itself- why if murder is wrong does Abraham comply with God's commandment to murder his son? Why does this moral delimna not enter the mind of either Abraham or Isaac? The fact that God had the power to raise Isaac from the dead explains his trust in God for the sake of fulfilling the covenant but doesn't explain why the moral question of human sacrifice Doesnt enter Abraham's mind as wrong. The age old question that Kant had written as the apparent contradiction of morality vs. Divine revelation is not a contradiction but a fulfillment of God's end of a blood covenant which pagan deities did not uphold, and that this God unlike molech and other deities did not delight in the sacrifice of humans.

Even if I knew that God would restore my son to complete working order and I knew God was asking me to stab a knife in him I couldn't do it and I don't think anyone in todays culture could do this. Wouldn't the question of this act being morally wrong enter your head? Understanding the context and culture he lived in gives understanding to why this moral delimna never entered his mind and why God did not condemn him for doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

"That is patently false. The Bible reveals enough about God's love in the Torah that an honest person who reads the text with no in an unprejudiced manner can see the love and mercy of God in the Festivals, the sacrificial systems, the laws of the Torah concerning the care of the poor, orphans, widows and honor of one's parents, as well commandments about mercy, accurate and fair monetary compensation, and the overal commandments to love one's neighbor as one's self. The Torah, focuses far more on love, forgiveness, redemption, salvation, mercy and grace and spiritual freedom than any other ancient, contemporaneous religious document. "

Exactly. It stands in stark contrast to any other contemporaneous religious document. And in contrasting these pre existing documents the true love, forgiveness, redemption etc., that the Torah presents is seen in every aspect of God and his superiority to pagan deities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
certainly this story shows the faith in God that Abraham had shown and that the blood covenant was one in which he could put his trust in. In contrast with the deities in other cultures who simply did not hold up there end of thebargain.
The point I was making was that I did not have study other deities or other mythologies to understand or decifer God's character.

However the greater moral question is not answered in the text itself- why if murder is wrong does Abraham comply with God's commandment to murder his son?
Because it was not an act of murder. Murder is the wanton act of taking an innocent human life. There is moral aspect to killing someone that makes it an act of murder versus something like self-defense or killing an enemy combatant in war. You are misapplying murder to the text.

Why does this moral delimna not enter the mind of either Abraham or Isaac?
Because God was not asking Abraham to murder Isaac. You are trying to create a moral delimma where none exists in this story. Included in the story is Abraham's knowledge that Isaac was going to return with him down from the mountain. Abraham knew that one way or the other, Isaac would come down the mountain with him, fully alive.

The fact that God had the power to raise Isaac from the dead explains his trust in God for the sake of fulfilling the covenant but doesn't explain why the moral question of human sacrifice Doesnt enter Abraham's mind as wrong.
Actually it does. The problem is that you are not applying the historical context correctly.

The age old question that Kant had written as the apparent contradiction of morality vs. Divine revelation is not a contradiction but a fulfillment of God's end of a blood covenant which pagan deities did not uphold, and that this God unlike molech and other deities did not delight in the sacrifice of humans.

Even if I knew that God would restore my son to complete working order and I knew God was asking me to stab a knife in him I couldn't do it and I don't think anyone in todays culture could do this.

If you lived in Abraham's culture and had been through the type of blood covenant that he and God had been through, it would not be a problem for you. Of course, YOU can't accept that because you are still viewing the text through the lense of today's culture, so for you such a request is inconceivable.

Wouldn't the question of this act being morally wrong enter your head? Understanding the context and culture he lived in gives understanding to why this moral delimna never entered his mind and why God did not condemn him for doing so.
If I had lived in Abraham's culture and had encountred God as Abraham had, the moral delimma probably would not be a problem. This story illustrates why the Bible holds Abraham up as a major model of faith.

Exactly. It stands in stark contrast to any other contemporaneous religious document. And in contrasting these pre existing documents the true love, forgiveness, redemption etc., that the Torah presents is seen in every aspect of God and his superiority to pagan deities.
That may be true, but that still does not really address of literal interpretation. As I stated, I have no problem with understanding the surrounding socio-politcal and religious climates that are peripheral to the biblical record. The problem I have is the insuation that the Bible is actually a reproduction of those mythologies, and that understanding those mythologies will help in understanding how the Bible was constructed.

Many interpretations of a text exists. The fact that you believe them to be erroneous or irrelevant does notmean that they do not exist.

It has nothing to do with what I believe. I could believe that my computer is really a hot fudge sundae. That does not make it so. The fact is there are different opinions about the text of Scripture, but there is only ONE true interpretation of any text.

Can you imagine the confusion if you took this type of subjective interpretative process you are championing and applied it to a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. or a book on the life of Queen Elizabeth??? What if I decided to reject the actually record of the biographers and decided to interpret their text according to what I wanted to believe about MLK Jr.??? What's worse is if I decided to write my own book based my own intepretation of the book and filled it with only the facts I was willing to accept?? I would be a laughing stock and I book would not even get published. No one would treat any other book or newspaper article with the same kind irresponsible interpretative process you suggest. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, those rules go out the window and suddenly the Bible means whatever you want it to mean.

Antinomy is not contradiction but a type of paradox

an⋅tin⋅o⋅my  /

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

"Can you imagine the confusion if you took this type of subjective interpretative process you are championing and applied it to a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. or a book on the life of Queen Elizabeth??? What if I decided to reject the actually record of the biographers and decided to interpret their text according to what I wanted to believe about MLK Jr.??? What's worse is if I decided to write my own book based my own intepretation of the book and filled it with only the facts I was willing to accept?? I would be a laughing stock and I book would not even get published. No one would treat any other book or newspaper article with the same kind irresponsible interpretative process you suggest. Yet, when it comes to the Bible, those rules go out the window and suddenly the Bible means whatever you want it to mean. "

That is not what I am suggesting- to obtain a better understanding of

the life and death of Martin Luther King you really need to understand the racism and prejudice that he

so often preached against. To me (a young man who was not alive during this time) the ideas preached by Martin Luther King seem obvious, but in that time and place they were radical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

"If you lived in Abraham's culture and had been through the type of blood covenant that he and God had been through, it would not be a problem for you. Of course, YOU can't accept that because you are still viewing the text through the lense of today's culture, so for you such a request is inconceivable."

This is a very good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
That is not what I am suggesting- to obtain a better understanding ofthe life and death of Martin Luther King you really need to understand the racism and prejudice that he

so often preached against. To me (a young man who was not alive during this time) the ideas preached by Martin Luther King seem obvious, but in that time and place they were radical.

But that is NOT how you are approaching the biblical text. You are approaching the biblical text (at least in Genesis) as a metaphor. My point is that if you approached any other literary wortk with the subjective and arbitrary methods you approach Scripture, you would have nothing but confusion, paritcularly if you tried to spread your views to others.

The Bible is not servant to reader. The Bible is not subject to the interprative whims of each and every person. The Bible follows the rules of literature and therefore must be interpreted within the rules of genuine, competent literary analysis (heremeneutics), as opposed to the liberal, anti-biblical, and arbitrary approaches suggested by higher criticism. Higher criticism is irresponsible and borders on nothing less than pure quackery.

I am not saying that the Torah is a reproduction of those mythologies but a polemic against these mythologies. That is why understanding the myths and legends creates a context by which we can more readily understand the text.

The problem is that that is not how the Torah presents itself. The Torah's theme is redemption. The Torah does speak against paganism, but it is not a polemic against prior mythologies as the Bible does not address those mythologies. For the Torah to be a "polemic," it would have to offer a refutation to the specific claims made by those preexisting mythologies, but it does not do that. Rather the focus of the Torah is on God Himself and His plan of redemption for man.

Antinomy is when two ideas or laws appear to be a contradiction but are both shown to be valid.
I understand that. The problem is that Jesus being both man and God is not an antimony in Scripture. For Jesus' humanity and deity to be antimonious, Jesus would have to have possessed the same human failings. In essence Jesus would somehow have to sin, but yet remain sinless. A more accurate example of an antimony in the Bible would be Free will vs. Predestination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  34
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  828
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2006
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/28/1980

"The problem is that that is not how the Torah presents itself. The Torah's theme is redemption. The Torah does speak against paganism, but it is not a polemic against prior mythologies as the Bible does not address those mythologies. For the Torah to be a "polemic," it would have to offer a refutation to the specific claims made by those preexisting mythologies, but it does not do that. Rather the focus of the Torah is on God Himself and His plan of redemption for man."

First of all let us hear from the mouth of the author how important the issue of paganism was:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...