On January 07 2012 15:46 imjorman wrote: Biblical authors wrote to various audiences with a singular goal: to convey information about Jesus Christ and how to best follow his example.
All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text. Because if it wasn't historically accurate, I wouldn't bother interpreting it. Once again, totally open to talking.
hey, please think about what you're saying. why shouldn't you bother interpreting it? wouldn't it even be more interesting and challenging if you consider the possibility that some parts of the bible are inaccurate?
me for example, i have my own method of interpreting the bible. i look at it in the context of all world religions and try to understand the parallels, because i assume that everyone is mostly talking about the same thing.
This is a joke right? You are really thinking, that Matthew, or anybody else for that matter, just wrote down 'facts' that got conveyed atleast 50 years by mouth before he even heard of them? Of course there are hidden meanings. Do you really believe that everything in the life of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the bible is true? Jesus making the blind guy sighted again? LOL, there are obviously tons of hidden intentions and meanings. Jesus survived 40 days of fasting in the desert? Herod killing thousands of babies because he is afraid of a ' THE GREAT KING OF THE JEWS ' ? lol. Do I need to give more examples?
i think the teachings of buddha have actually been conveyed by mouth for several hundred years
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
On January 07 2012 19:53 Meta wrote: Very informative post. In your example where Paul writes that women should be submissive to men, he wasn't acting out of overt misogyny, he was merely reflecting the average views of his time and place. I agree.
The problem comes when people don't attribute that writing to Paul, a simple mortal man living in the first century Roman empire, but instead attribute it to divine, perfect omniscience. Then this happens:
/sigh
Yeah a typical fundamentalist misogynist....damn idiot.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
i don't see why you wouldn't consider exegesis a science then... makes no sense to me. sounds more like religion bashing.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
i don't see why you wouldn't consider exegesis a science then... makes no sense to me. sounds more like religion bashing.
If you read my argument, you'll see why I claim it to be a pseudo-scientifical method. It lacks the verifiable or falsifiable proof of historical and archeological sciences, which is what is needed if one wants to attatch biblical characters and events to real life.
On January 07 2012 15:46 imjorman wrote: Biblical authors wrote to various audiences with a singular goal: to convey information about Jesus Christ and how to best follow his example.
Subjective much? Claiming that makes you just another misty-eyed religious guy. Obviously biblical authors did not write about Jesus Christ in the first place. Long before the bible, people passed on moral stories by mouth. Why? Because nobody was able to read. After hundreds of years, those moral stories ( with no religious aspect in them ) were used by biblical authors as a foundation. On this foundation they began writing down those stories, but overlaying religious aspects. All those stories were collected in a book, which people call the bible nowadays. So, if you, as you said, read alot about this topic, would have to know that it's not about Jesus Christ at all. It's all about conveying the morals. the lifestyle and the relations between people, to show them how to life a good and honest life. Well after that the religious fanatics came to the conclusion that they just aswell could exploit people that believed (taxes etc.) and kill the people that did not believe.
So, you see: The bible and it's stories are really old moral stories that got ' raped ' by biblical authors to fit them into their believes. Jesus Christ is just the imaginary collection of all these morals and not the 'main part' of the bible.
Narrative: the most basic type of genre. These pieces of literature were simply stories. Think of the life of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the acts of the Disciples (Acts). These are basic narratives that cover a specific story (life, death, ressurection, subsequent ministries). You can read this just like you would a story. No hidden meanings, just a recounting of the events as they occured.
This is a joke right? You are really thinking, that Matthew, or anybody else for that matter, just wrote down 'facts' that got conveyed atleast 50 years by mouth before he even heard of them? Of course there are hidden meanings. Do you really believe that everything in the life of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the bible is true? Jesus making the blind guy sighted again? LOL, there are obviously tons of hidden intentions and meanings. Jesus survived 40 days of fasting in the desert? Herod killing thousands of babies because he is afraid of a ' THE GREAT KING OF THE JEWS ' ? lol. Do I need to give more examples?
All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text. Because if it wasn't historically accurate, I wouldn't bother interpreting it. Once again, totally open to talking.
What the fuck. Sorry I'm no native english speaker, but do you say, that you assume that everything in the bible is historically accurate and authentical? In other words, do you think, everything in the bible happened in reality like it was written in the bible?
Harsh tone
Let me clarify, maybe this should be added to the OP. When i talk about historical accuracy, I'm referring mostly to the New Testament, for one. Because most theologians that I associate with wouldn't consider the Pentateuch to be historically accurate (read the post about theological interpretation of the old testament).
But let me respond to your post with "New Testament' in mind
Your first paragraph: I'd say your just wrong. I would also be interested in reading your sources. Because of textual study, you can conclude that most of this stuff was written down before 70 AD (Destruction of Temple in Jerusalem) in the language of Koine Greek (not much different from Classical Greek that Plato and others of like nature used, just some words meant different things). Koine, meaning common, was a Greek style the AVERAGE man could read (that says something cool about the New Testament in and of itself). People read. Aristotle and Plato before them wrote stuff down, so why is it weird that scholars like Luke would write down their encounters?
Your comments on the narrative: Of the four gospel writers, three were eye witnesses (traditionally, I wouldn't be opposed to pseudo-authors, but I haven't found convincing arguments otherwise) and the fourth (Luke) was a scholar/historian/doctor who interviewed people (Luke 1:1-4) to find out information about Jesus life. And yeah, I do believe in the miracles in the Bible. I don't think they can be reduced to allegory.
And when you speak of the "50 years by mouth" as if it's a terrible thing. When WWII ended, did we rush up to veterans immediately and want to capture all of the things they had to say? No, we're just now doing that (in the last ten years) and recording their memories by video/audio (hence all the old guys on History Channel). We wouldn't consider those stories inaccurate? So why the stories of those a little less than two thousand years ago.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
I think when interpreting any type of text in an effort to form a worldview, you honestly just have to be objective. As a scholar, I have to let my worldview and scholarship be shaped by the things that I discover in the text. I piss a lot of people off within my institutional church for this. I guess I would say (not trying to be a cock, just honest) I have a greater loyalty to the person the text talks about and the text itself (in that order) than I do my denominational ties. Meet Christians that hate drinking? Well shit, that's not biblical - no matter how you try to slice it. Gay bashing? How the hell do you get there? See my point? Remove presuppositions, then study.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
i don't see why you wouldn't consider exegesis a science then... makes no sense to me. sounds more like religion bashing.
If you read my argument, you'll see why I claim it to be a pseudo-scientifical method. It lacks the verifiable or falsifiable proof of historical and archeological sciences, which is what is needed if one wants to attatch biblical characters and events to real life.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
i don't see why you wouldn't consider exegesis a science then... makes no sense to me. sounds more like religion bashing.
If you read my argument, you'll see why I claim it to be a pseudo-scientifical method. It lacks the verifiable or falsifiable proof of historical and archeological sciences, which is what is needed if one wants to attatch biblical characters and events to real life.
well, you talk about how one has to understand the history of storytelling for example. why do you assume that people didn't take this into consideration?
tbh, i haven't read the OP, but i'm sure that there's several interpretations of the bible, based on different assumptions etc. ... maybe OP made some assumptions you don't like, but it's still interesting to see what the result/meaning turns out to be.
exegesis would be pseudo scientific if everyone ignored your points, yes, but i'm sure that's not the case at all.
On January 07 2012 15:46 imjorman wrote: Biblical authors wrote to various audiences with a singular goal: to convey information about Jesus Christ and how to best follow his example.
Subjective much? Claiming that makes you just another misty-eyed religious guy. Obviously biblical authors did not write about Jesus Christ in the first place. Long before the bible, people passed on moral stories by mouth. Why? Because nobody was able to read. After hundreds of years, those moral stories ( with no religious aspect in them ) were used by biblical authors as a foundation. On this foundation they began writing down those stories, but overlaying religious aspects. All those stories were collected in a book, which people call the bible nowadays. So, if you, as you said, read alot about this topic, would have to know that it's not about Jesus Christ at all. It's all about conveying the morals. the lifestyle and the relations between people, to show them how to life a good and honest life. Well after that the religious fanatics came to the conclusion that they just aswell could exploit people that believed (taxes etc.) and kill the people that did not believe.
So, you see: The bible and it's stories are really old moral stories that got ' raped ' by biblical authors to fit them into their believes. Jesus Christ is just the imaginary collection of all these morals and not the 'main part' of the bible.
e: So I read some more in your post:
Narrative: the most basic type of genre. These pieces of literature were simply stories. Think of the life of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the acts of the Disciples (Acts). These are basic narratives that cover a specific story (life, death, ressurection, subsequent ministries). You can read this just like you would a story. No hidden meanings, just a recounting of the events as they occured.
This is a joke right? You are really thinking, that Matthew, or anybody else for that matter, just wrote down 'facts' that got conveyed atleast 50 years by mouth before he even heard of them? Of course there are hidden meanings. Do you really believe that everything in the life of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the bible is true? Jesus making the blind guy sighted again? LOL, there are obviously tons of hidden intentions and meanings. Jesus survived 40 days of fasting in the desert? Herod killing thousands of babies because he is afraid of a ' THE GREAT KING OF THE JEWS ' ? lol. Do I need to give more examples?
All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text. Because if it wasn't historically accurate, I wouldn't bother interpreting it. Once again, totally open to talking.
What the fuck. Sorry I'm no native english speaker, but do you say, that you assume that everything in the bible is historically accurate and authentical? In other words, do you think, everything in the bible happened in reality like it was written in the bible?
Harsh tone
Let me clarify, maybe this should be added to the OP. When i talk about historical accuracy, I'm referring mostly to the New Testament, for one. Because most theologians that I associate with wouldn't consider the Pentateuch to be historically accurate (read the post about theological interpretation of the old testament).
But let me respond to your post with "New Testament' in mind
Your first paragraph: I'd say your just wrong. I would also be interested in reading your sources. Because of textual study, you can conclude that most of this stuff was written down before 70 AD (Destruction of Temple in Jerusalem) in the language of Koine Greek (not much different from Classical Greek that Plato and others of like nature used, just some words meant different things). Koine, meaning common, was a Greek style the AVERAGE man could read (that says something cool about the New Testament in and of itself). People read. Aristotle and Plato before them wrote stuff down, so why is it weird that scholars like Luke would write down their encounters?
Your comments on the narrative: Of the four gospel writers, three were eye witnesses (traditionally, I wouldn't be opposed to pseudo-authors, but I haven't found convincing arguments otherwise) and the fourth (Luke) was a scholar/historian/doctor who interviewed people (Luke 1:1-4) to find out information about Jesus life. And yeah, I do believe in the miracles in the Bible. I don't think they can be reduced to allegory.
And when you speak of the "50 years by mouth" as if it's a terrible thing. When WWII ended, did we rush up to veterans immediately and want to capture all of the things they had to say? No, we're just now doing that (in the last ten years) and recording their memories by video/audio (hence all the old guys on History Channel). We wouldn't consider those stories inaccurate? So why the stories of those a little less than two thousand years ago.
To be fair, 50 years by mouth is worse back then compared to WWII, for two main reasons. One is that life expectancy is much higher today than back then. 50 years by word of mouth back then would most likely be two generations, while WWII veterans are the same people. The second is that soldiers (mostly white) would have received middle/high school education before enlisting, making them more educated and therefore their recollections more accurate.
Other than that I'm completely out of my depth so I won't comment on the other stuff
Great blog though, always interesting to read different things.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
i don't see why you wouldn't consider exegesis a science then... makes no sense to me. sounds more like religion bashing.
If you read my argument, you'll see why I claim it to be a pseudo-scientifical method. It lacks the verifiable or falsifiable proof of historical and archeological sciences, which is what is needed if one wants to attatch biblical characters and events to real life.
well, you talk about how one has to understand the history of storytelling for example. why do you assume that people didn't take this into consideration?
tbh, i haven't read the OP, but i'm sure that there's several interpretations of the bible, based on different assumptions etc. ... maybe OP made some assumptions you don't like, but it's still interesting to see what the result/meaning turns out to be.
exegesis would be pseudo scientific if everyone ignored your points, yes, but i'm sure that's not the case at all.
Just like any other science (biology, astronomy, whatev) you should (note: should) drop all presuppositions and agendas you have surrounding the issue your studying. Like the big thing in my church right now: alcohol usage. Whenever the interpret scripture, they have the presupposition that alcohol is evil. They wouldn't find that if they went into the study thinking, "What is the bible saying about alcohol usage?" You see what I mean?
soooooo yeah. I don't know if I'm even appropriately responding or just typing shit lolol
On January 07 2012 15:46 imjorman wrote: Biblical authors wrote to various audiences with a singular goal: to convey information about Jesus Christ and how to best follow his example.
Subjective much? Claiming that makes you just another misty-eyed religious guy. Obviously biblical authors did not write about Jesus Christ in the first place. Long before the bible, people passed on moral stories by mouth. Why? Because nobody was able to read. After hundreds of years, those moral stories ( with no religious aspect in them ) were used by biblical authors as a foundation. On this foundation they began writing down those stories, but overlaying religious aspects. All those stories were collected in a book, which people call the bible nowadays. So, if you, as you said, read alot about this topic, would have to know that it's not about Jesus Christ at all. It's all about conveying the morals. the lifestyle and the relations between people, to show them how to life a good and honest life. Well after that the religious fanatics came to the conclusion that they just aswell could exploit people that believed (taxes etc.) and kill the people that did not believe.
So, you see: The bible and it's stories are really old moral stories that got ' raped ' by biblical authors to fit them into their believes. Jesus Christ is just the imaginary collection of all these morals and not the 'main part' of the bible.
e: So I read some more in your post:
Narrative: the most basic type of genre. These pieces of literature were simply stories. Think of the life of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and the acts of the Disciples (Acts). These are basic narratives that cover a specific story (life, death, ressurection, subsequent ministries). You can read this just like you would a story. No hidden meanings, just a recounting of the events as they occured.
This is a joke right? You are really thinking, that Matthew, or anybody else for that matter, just wrote down 'facts' that got conveyed atleast 50 years by mouth before he even heard of them? Of course there are hidden meanings. Do you really believe that everything in the life of Jesus Christ, as it is written in the bible is true? Jesus making the blind guy sighted again? LOL, there are obviously tons of hidden intentions and meanings. Jesus survived 40 days of fasting in the desert? Herod killing thousands of babies because he is afraid of a ' THE GREAT KING OF THE JEWS ' ? lol. Do I need to give more examples?
All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text. Because if it wasn't historically accurate, I wouldn't bother interpreting it. Once again, totally open to talking.
What the fuck. Sorry I'm no native english speaker, but do you say, that you assume that everything in the bible is historically accurate and authentical? In other words, do you think, everything in the bible happened in reality like it was written in the bible?
Harsh tone
Let me clarify, maybe this should be added to the OP. When i talk about historical accuracy, I'm referring mostly to the New Testament, for one. Because most theologians that I associate with wouldn't consider the Pentateuch to be historically accurate (read the post about theological interpretation of the old testament).
But let me respond to your post with "New Testament' in mind
Your first paragraph: I'd say your just wrong. I would also be interested in reading your sources. Because of textual study, you can conclude that most of this stuff was written down before 70 AD (Destruction of Temple in Jerusalem) in the language of Koine Greek (not much different from Classical Greek that Plato and others of like nature used, just some words meant different things). Koine, meaning common, was a Greek style the AVERAGE man could read (that says something cool about the New Testament in and of itself). People read. Aristotle and Plato before them wrote stuff down, so why is it weird that scholars like Luke would write down their encounters?
Your comments on the narrative: Of the four gospel writers, three were eye witnesses (traditionally, I wouldn't be opposed to pseudo-authors, but I haven't found convincing arguments otherwise) and the fourth (Luke) was a scholar/historian/doctor who interviewed people (Luke 1:1-4) to find out information about Jesus life. And yeah, I do believe in the miracles in the Bible. I don't think they can be reduced to allegory.
And when you speak of the "50 years by mouth" as if it's a terrible thing. When WWII ended, did we rush up to veterans immediately and want to capture all of the things they had to say? No, we're just now doing that (in the last ten years) and recording their memories by video/audio (hence all the old guys on History Channel). We wouldn't consider those stories inaccurate? So why the stories of those a little less than two thousand years ago.
To be fair, 50 years by mouth is worse back then compared to WWII, for two main reasons. One is that life expectancy is much higher today than back then. 50 years by word of mouth back then would most likely be two generations, while WWII veterans are the same people. The second is that soldiers (mostly white) would have received middle/high school education before enlisting, making them more educated and therefore their recollections more accurate.
Other than that I'm completely out of my depth so I won't comment on the other stuff
Great blog though, always interesting to read different things.
Every jewish boy back in the early AD's would have known the Torah word-by-word from schooling. Most people had a rudimentary education, at the least. Rich people went and studied under big shots, but most jewish people had a basi Jewish education.
On January 08 2012 00:09 evanthebouncy! wrote: can anyone just tell me what this blog is about? I'm rather confused hahaha
Apparently it's about scrying the "true" meaning of the christian bible. Like many others, the OP realises the problem in fanatics taking parts of the bible and quoting it to underbuild their own world view. His problem, though, is that what he's doing, is pretty much the same, only that he uses a pseudo-scientifical method to validate his claims, attempting through his schooling to gain legitimacy in his personal or taught view of how the bible should be interpreted.
I say pseudo-scientifical method in direct response to one of his first claims - "it is a science in the respect that there is a method that is followed for interpretation". It is true that sciences are based on a methodical approach to a subject, but this isn't the entirety of it. The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy, something which exegetic studies doesn't really do. Actually, in his disclaimer, he proves directly opposite - "All of my writing above assumes accuracy and authenticity of biblical text". Studying a literary work with the baseline of it being true (but possibly misunderstood) goes against the scientific method, as there's no presented falsifiable or verifiable proof of this being the case, making this assumption unbased.
That said, there are evidence of parts of the bible having base in history, which can verify parts of the writing, or at least the existance of the writers. That doesn't in any way verify the rest of the book, though. You cannot look at a hoofprint on the ground and go "Hey, unicorns are real! I saw a hoofprint of one!" - in the same thought, you cannot look at parts of history or literature and expect to paint a full image, much less make assertive claims about its truth or not.
If one wants to study a piece of literature, one needs to know its history. To know the literature's history, one needs to know the history of storytelling as well as the contextual information needed from the time when it was written. The history of storytelling is especially important, as, as someone else mentioned, a lot of the christian bible is based on oral tradition from pre-literate societies and pre-literate times. Knowing how stories tend to linger, but mutate, over time, and how storytelling has changed between oral to literal societies while keeping much of the content, is essential in understanding the messages in the christian bible. Just applying a broad stroke and saying that it needs to be understood within its own historical context is very lacking, as it doesn't take into account that there's far more going in storytelling than only its own time, especially this far back in history.
I don't mind anyone studying literature on its own merits - categorizing the events, relating the characters to each other and so on. The moment it's taken into connection with the real world, though, it requires a much higher scrutiny on wether or not it's validatable though - if not, anything written about it is as much fiction as the literature they're studying.
"The scientific method used in science is based on accumulation of evidence and the verificability or fasifiability of the study to underbuild its legitimacy" <- you're talkin about science in general? or how science should handle the bible?
if you're talking generally here, you're wrong. you're referring to physics, but science is a broader field than you think. e.g. philosophy is science too.
No, I am talking about the scientific method, which is how all science is approached. While I'm not too familiar with philosophy (only did an introductionary half-year course on it when starting university many years ago), I do imagine their chains of logics and argumentative methods is what is claimed as its method of collecting evidence. Of course, with the entire field being metaphysical, how much you want to attribute to that is up to you.
i don't see why you wouldn't consider exegesis a science then... makes no sense to me. sounds more like religion bashing.
If you read my argument, you'll see why I claim it to be a pseudo-scientifical method. It lacks the verifiable or falsifiable proof of historical and archeological sciences, which is what is needed if one wants to attatch biblical characters and events to real life.
well, you talk about how one has to understand the history of storytelling for example. why do you assume that people didn't take this into consideration?
tbh, i haven't read the OP, but i'm sure that there's several interpretations of the bible, based on different assumptions etc. ... maybe OP made some assumptions you don't like, but it's still interesting to see what the result/meaning turns out to be.
exegesis would be pseudo scientific if everyone ignored your points, yes, but i'm sure that's not the case at all.
Just like any other science (biology, astronomy, whatev) you should (note: should) drop all presuppositions and agendas you have surrounding the issue your studying. Like the big thing in my church right now: alcohol usage. Whenever the interpret scripture, they have the presupposition that alcohol is evil. They wouldn't find that if they went into the study thinking, "What is the bible saying about alcohol usage?" You see what I mean?
soooooo yeah. I don't know if I'm even appropriately responding or just typing shit lolol
sure, you're right. since i didn't even read OP, i can't tell if he did things like that, haha.
Exegesis is always a limited work though. I really do appreciate the historical textual scholars and this kind of return to the text that began with the proto-Reformation scholars that started rereading the original Greek and Hebrew texts were the ones that set the basis for higher criticism that had an important part in the modernization of Christianity, but I can't really get into it.
I can understand why so many people are skeptical about this, and it always is a limited work, but the fact that it is limited is a good thing as it keeps it honest. As long as exegesis and claims of kerygma don't become absolutized then the scholarship is healthy to some extent. I would wager that most people don't understand that it's this kind of historical criticism that is exactly what has brought Christianity into modernity and which sparked incredible debate among Christians and has led to ideological fractures. This common view of Christianity among the Anglo atheists is basically the way fundamentalists view Christianity, so it is a bit amusing that both the atheists and the fundamentalists engage in the same sort of populist anti-intellectualism. The Continental Europeans seem to have a more nuanced dialogue with religion and have been producing a great deal of incredibly interesting radical philosophical readings of Jewish and Christian text, often as atheists.
EPT
