|
Author
|
Topic: Did God say it, or did you say it?
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
quote:
How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say? Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence?
The teacher should know these things because the teacher should be trained in Biblical hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation). The wikipedia article ( Biblical hermeneutics - Wikipedia) is very broad-ranging, but if you scroll down to "Techniques of hermeneutics" you will find the method used by Evangelical Christians as described by Henry Virkler. This is the method which is often imprecisely called a "literal" method of interpretation. It is composed of a number of sub-methods which should all be incorporated. The most important sub-methods are the first three:
wikipedia, Biblical hermeneutics writes:
1. Lexical-syntactical method: This method looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text. 2. Historical/cultural method: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions. 3. Contextual method: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by killinghurts, posted 02-22-2010 9:49 PM | | killinghurts has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
quote:
Hermeneutics - interesting.
I had a quick look at the wiki site, and had one question: Who came up those methods of interpretation and how does one verify they are correct?
These methods are generally accepted by various groups. The ones I referred to are generally accepted by Evangelicals (including educated YECs). I believe Augustine said that theology (including hermeneutics) is the "Queen of the sciences," but most today would classify hermeneutics as an art rather than a science. Thus, I can't answer your question of "how does one verify they are correct?" because I don't know what your standard of "verification" is for a non-scientific field. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by killinghurts, posted 02-24-2010 10:44 PM | | killinghurts has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
(1)
| |
| |
| |
quote:
Based on your post, I think I (and perhaps you) find it difficult to understand how hermeneutics can be used as the basis for interpretation of truth and meaning when an element of artistic license is invoked.
Not at all. Why does an "element of artistic license" disqualify it as a good basis for interpretation? Surgery is also an art. Do you ask the surgeon to "verify" all of his methods? Do you accuse his procedures of resting on a poor basis if he can't do so? Would you prefer that your surgery be done by a robot which cannot exercise elements of "artistic license"? The Bible is literature, not science. It must not be read or interpreted as a scientific text.
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
Message 16 of 127 (548087)
02-25-2010 12:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by greyseal
02-25-2010 9:55 AM
|
|
Re: actually...it's not that simple
quote:
I haven't ascertained the truth of that (I neither speak nor read Hebrew) - what I have seen so far is one quote purportedly from one person who claims to be a scholar, who wrote a book or two about hebrew and the bible, and he says that YOM can mean any length of time in addition to the standard "24 hours" and "daylight part of the day" meanings - and there is potentially supporting evidence. It would be an argument from authority to call you wrong, and I'd only have your word for it that you're able to translate from (ancient) Hebrew into English and/or are more correct that said author...
Why don't you just look it up yourself and resolve the issue to your own satisfaction? The standard Hebrew lexicon is by Brown, Driver, Briggs, and Gesenius. You can find it in your local library, and an abridged version is available online in a few places. Here is "yom": http://biblestudy.crosswalk.com/mybst/default.aspx?type=l...Yowm Meaning in Bible - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard The unabridged version has much more information, but I can't find an online version. For even more information on Hebrew words from a conservative Evangelical perspective, you can check TWOT (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament). You'll need to go to a library to find it. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by greyseal, posted 02-25-2010 9:55 AM | | greyseal has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 25 of 127 (548224)
02-26-2010 9:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by greyseal
02-26-2010 1:51 AM
|
|
Re: Re:Literal
quote:
The earth was "without form, and void" - it's fair to say it didn't exist, it wasn't "formed".
"Without form and void" can also be translated "empty and desolate" This is different from non-existence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by greyseal, posted 02-26-2010 1:51 AM | | greyseal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 58 by greyseal, posted 03-02-2010 4:18 AM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 62 of 127 (548931)
03-02-2010 3:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by greyseal
03-02-2010 4:18 AM
|
|
Re: Re:Literal
quote:
without form and void is a bit more powerful a phrase than "empty and desolate". I think if they'd meant merely "empty and desolate" they should have said so...
They didn't say "without form and void" and they didn't say "empty and desolate." They said tohu wa-bohu. I suggest that they meant tohu wa-bohu.
quote:
...but now you have a problem. You want to believe in a literal bible when the original manuscripts are non existent, the authors unknown and even the translation is open to interpretation?
What's the problem? Any sort of literature, whether in one's mother tongue or not, is "open to interpretation," so must be interpreted carefully and correctly. This is also true of scientific writings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by greyseal, posted 03-02-2010 4:18 AM | | greyseal has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by greyseal, posted 03-03-2010 3:48 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
quote:
Because it may not be what God meant to say, if you "make it up" which is what an artistic license is then you don't know if it is really what God meant.
A good interpreter does not just "make it up." If this is what you meant when you said that hermeneutics has an "element of artistic license," then I disagree with your characterization of hermeneutics. I agree with the "art," but not the "license."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by killinghurts, posted 02-28-2010 8:11 PM | | killinghurts has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 68 of 127 (549063)
03-03-2010 5:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by greyseal
03-03-2010 3:48 PM
|
|
Re: Re:Literal
quote:
These words, they don't seem to be God's words, do they?
To steal a phrase from Kenton Sparks, the Bible is "God's Word in Human Words."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by greyseal, posted 03-03-2010 3:48 PM | | greyseal has not replied |
|
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: 05-10-2007
|
|
|
Message 107 of 127 (549635)
03-09-2010 11:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by purpledawn
03-08-2010 8:21 AM
|
|
Re: Address the Topic
quote:
It doesn't matter how long a day is. The point of the topic questions deal with how do you or teachers know what you are saying is correct or is what God meant?
Message 1
How does a teacher of religion know (and they should know because they *are* teaching this as the truth to people) that the non-literal interpretation of creation is actually what God meant and not just what the teacher *thinks* God *meant* to say?
Sure you can cross-reference, and that's what we saw in the 6 Day example in the other thread (cross references to both ancient language and modern science), but how do you know you are cross-referencing the correct material/evidence? quote:
You're making a conclusion concerning the A&E story, which supposedly originated long before the Priestly writer wrote Genesis 1. How do you know that what you are saying is what God meant and not just what preachers think it means?
How do you know that what you are saying is what the Priestly writer meant and not just what preachers think it means? These stories belong to a different culture and dead languages. We have lost the slang, humor, idioms, and the substance of their lives. We're all guessing, IMO.
I agree that our goal is to try to understand what the original authors meant. And I agree that we can never know this perfectly. But I see no reason to "throw in the towel" and relegate it all to guesswork. By studying the language, history, and culture, we can come closer to understanding what would have been meant. In the last century we have discovered new information about Babylonian, Mesopotamian, and Egyptian creation stories, and these can help us to understand the thinking and the context of Genesis.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2010 8:21 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2