|
On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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
Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right?
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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin'''
|
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.
That might be a reason to judge his misogyny less severely, but it doesn't make him not a misogynist.
|
On January 08 2012 01:44 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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.
Letting the text talk rather than being dictated by presuppositions is a good thing, yes. The problem that you seem to have ignored from my first post, is that when taking a largely unverified work and attempting to connect that to reality and your perception of it, is problemtic, as you need a certain base of evidence to make the literature legitimate.
That doesn't mean the stories in the bible are outright lies or attempts at dececption. It just means that their intentions are either lost in time and doesn't apply to our current reality, or that our interpretations of their intentions is incorrect due to our lacking interpretative material.
Taking the entire bible at face value (or even just the New Testament) I find majorly problematic, simply because of the lacking overall evidence as well as modern interpretational methods lacking omniscience.
On January 08 2012 01:45 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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. I think you'd be interested in these guys: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/ I reallllllyyyyy wanna go on a dig with them sometime.
This sounds really cool, and I'd love to join archaeological digs, especially at something as tangible as biblical reference material. Unearthing history's always been a strong interest of mine. That said, archaeological finds from things in the bible (locations, graves, that sort of stuff) doesn't verify the messaging or the fullness of the bible - just small, contextual bits of information.
On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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.
Of course I assume that people take it into consideration. That doesn't mean they understand it. Nobody has the full oversight, as we as humans have limited memories and knowledge. That fundamental lack of omniscience means our interpretations will always be lacking, and thus, we cannot assert certain truth - especially not in a book combined by manuscripts based on thousands year old oral stories as well as more modern, relatively speaking, revisions of said stories.
Of course his studies are interesting, as is probably the entire field of exogetic studies. That doesn't mean it in any way reflects reality or science though, which is what I'm trying to say.
|
On January 08 2012 02:09 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +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. That might be a reason to judge his misogyny less severely, but it doesn't make him not a misogynist.
I'm surprised it took so long for the thread to get this viewpoint posted but I definitely agree. I might even go a little further and say that since the bible is trying to represent some moral truths (from a higher power even) the misogyny in it is even worse than when compared to some other type of historical literature that might contain philosophy. Why would we apply context to something trying to display absolute timeless (from God) moral truths? All that said, this might not pertain to Paul's misogyny ,I just wanted to expand on the point of context.
|
On January 08 2012 01:40 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 22:13 Xiron wrote: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.
Hi,
forgive me my harsh tone but I can't stand wrong informations, especially in religious questions.
So, you claim that my statement is wrong, that the bible is grounded in hundred years old moral stories.
Here is my proof:
'Fast ausnahmslos (eigentlich nur mit Ausnahme der neutestamentlichen Briefe) beruhen die biblischen Texte auf einer vorausgegangenen, oft jahrhundertelangen mündlichen Überlieferung. Die schriftlichen Fassungen, die uns vorliegen, sind in der Regel späte Endprodukte lange vorhergehender Traditionen. D.h.: die biblischen Schriftsteller sind in der Regel nicht „Verfasser“ der unter ihrem Namen laufenden Texte, sondern Sammler und meist nur Endredaktoren von auch ihnen schon vorhergehenden Sammlungen; allerdings ist Redaktion auch immer Interpretation, so daß die uns vorliegenden Texte die Theologie der (meist unbekannten) Endredaktoren ist (z.B. „Matthäus“, „Markus“ usw.).'
- http://www.fwmarquardt.eu/Bibel.html by Friedrich - Wilhelm Marquardt, Professor for systematic theology
Here is the rough translation:
Almost exclusively (except a few of the new testament's letters) all biblical texts are founded in hundreds of years of oral tradition. The written texts, that we know, are usually end products of those traditions. That means, the biblical authors are not the writers of the texts, but they edited collections of earlier texts. Editing also means interpretation, so that the texts that we know from the bible are theologic interpretations by the Editors ( Matthew, Mark etc.)
So basically a professor for systematic theology proofs my statement here, which means I was not wrong.
On the narrative thing: 'And yeah, I do believe in the miracles in the Bible. I don't think they can be reduced to allegory.'
Alone this statement already indicates me that Im wasting my time. But Im still going to do it for myself:
Of course we do think that veteran stories are completely inaccurate. Who wouldn't? You can't take anything for granted what they say. Their memories are important to analyze the morality, metality, feelings and experiences. But not at all for historical proofs. Why? Because their memories change and get inaccurate? Why? Because hardly anyone can remember what they ate 2 months ago for lunch. How in the world would an author be able to decribe all the years he seemed to have lived with Jesus after 40 years? He wouldn't. This means he must have added something to the text, or forgotten something. This makes it inaccurate and worthless for history, but important for the morality, mentality and so on for that time.
|
On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? Show nested quote +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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin'''
Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more.
To your second point: No. There is more manuscript evidence that supports historical authenticity of the New Testament than Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, Plato's writings, and Aristotles. Also, the mention of biblical letters and characters by early Church fathers (such as Origen whole from ~185-254) supports their writings.
We could talk for ages about the differences between autographs, first draft copies, and third draft copies and the minimal to know errors found in these, but that would be a book. All I'm gonna point to, if you want to further reading, is the interesting discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940's that proved accuracy of biblical transcription from the Hebrew bible.
|
On January 08 2012 04:55 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? 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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin''' Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more.
So you have faith in a God, but you don't think that changes your perspective on a book written specifically about that God?
...
|
On January 08 2012 03:21 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:40 imjorman wrote:On January 07 2012 22:13 Xiron wrote: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. Hi, forgive me my harsh tone but I can't stand wrong informations, especially in religious questions. So, you claim that my statement is wrong, that the bible is grounded in hundred years old moral stories. Here is my proof: 'Fast ausnahmslos (eigentlich nur mit Ausnahme der neutestamentlichen Briefe) beruhen die biblischen Texte auf einer vorausgegangenen, oft jahrhundertelangen mündlichen Überlieferung. Die schriftlichen Fassungen, die uns vorliegen, sind in der Regel späte Endprodukte lange vorhergehender Traditionen. D.h.: die biblischen Schriftsteller sind in der Regel nicht „Verfasser“ der unter ihrem Namen laufenden Texte, sondern Sammler und meist nur Endredaktoren von auch ihnen schon vorhergehenden Sammlungen; allerdings ist Redaktion auch immer Interpretation, so daß die uns vorliegenden Texte die Theologie der (meist unbekannten) Endredaktoren ist (z.B. „Matthäus“, „Markus“ usw.).' - http://www.fwmarquardt.eu/Bibel.html by Friedrich - Wilhelm Marquardt, Professor for systematic theology Here is the rough translation: Almost exclusively (except a few of the new testament's letters) all biblical texts are founded in hundreds of years of oral tradition. The written texts, that we know, are usually end products of those traditions. That means, the biblical authors are not the writers of the texts, but they edited collections of earlier texts. Editing also means interpretation, so that the texts that we know from the bible are theologic interpretations by the Editors ( Matthew, Mark etc.) So basically a professor for systematic theology proofs my statement here, which means I was not wrong. On the narrative thing: 'And yeah, I do believe in the miracles in the Bible. I don't think they can be reduced to allegory.' Alone this statement already indicates me that Im wasting my time. But Im still going to do it for myself: Of course we do think that veteran stories are completely inaccurate. Who wouldn't? You can't take anything for granted what they say. Their memories are important to analyze the morality, metality, feelings and experiences. But not at all for historical proofs. Why? Because their memories change and get inaccurate? Why? Because hardly anyone can remember what they ate 2 months ago for lunch. How in the world would an author be able to decribe all the years he seemed to have lived with Jesus after 40 years? He wouldn't. This means he must have added something to the text, or forgotten something. This makes it inaccurate and worthless for history, but important for the morality, mentality and so on for that time.
To respond to your second paragraph first because I believe it will require less of an answer (at least for now anyway  , as I said, I love shooting the shit about this stuff): It is true, that people forget the trivial things in their life. Yeah, I can't remember what I had for lunch 2 months ago, but I sure can remember all of the memorable events in my life. If I completely believed that I spent the better part of three years of my life with the son of God, you would bet that I remember many of the details. ESPECIALLY if miracles were involved. If I saw a dude give a blind guy sight? How could you ever forget that? I don't think it's comparable to forgetting what I had for lunch.
To respond to your first: To quote biblical scholar and professor Alex Varughese when talking about the Gospel of Mark, "There is considerable agreement that it was written in Rome in the late 60s of the first century during or shortly after Nero's persecution of Christians and a year or two before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70." (He also includes reference to Browns, "Introduction to the New Testament", 161-164). Additionally, many scholars of the Gospel's assume two source theories. The first of which is known as "Markan Priority." This means that Mark's gospel was written first, and Luke/Matthew used it as a resource. Additionally, there is Q source (from the German word quelle, meaning source). These are the largely quoted pieces of material in all of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke) that do not come from Mark. No one has any idea what Q source is (or was). My best bet, regarding professor Marquardt's excerpt, is that he assuming Q to be a really old source(s) that the authors quoted. At any rate though, the synoptic gospels refer back to Mark for main source authority. The latest estimated date I've read for Mark is 70-80 AD, but given internal evidence regarding the destruction of the temple, I find these dates highly unlikely. And just as a disclaimer, I'm allow to disagree with Marquardt and call him wrong lol
|
On January 08 2012 05:11 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 04:55 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote:
[quote]
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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? 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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin''' Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more. So you have faith in a God, but you don't think that changes your perspective on a book written specifically about that God? ...
nonono, remove the idea of whether you believe in this God or not. For the sake of interpretation of this ancient text, it doesn't really matter if God is real or not. An atheist, theist, or whoever should be able to read the Bible and interpret it and arrive at a specific message. Whether or not you buy what the text is saying is a different story all together.
|
On January 08 2012 05:16 imjorman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 05:11 SeaSwift wrote:On January 08 2012 04:55 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:27 beg wrote:
[quote]
"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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? 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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin''' Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more. So you have faith in a God, but you don't think that changes your perspective on a book written specifically about that God? ... nonono, remove the idea of whether you believe in this God or not. For the sake of interpretation of this ancient text, it doesn't really matter if God is real or not. An atheist, theist, or whoever should be able to read the Bible and interpret it and arrive at a specific message. Whether or not you buy what the text is saying is a different story all together.
Ah, I think I see where you're getting at. So, you're more trying to decipher the original intentions of the authors of various parts of the Bible (specifically the New Testament?) and/or the message it gives today - whether it is true or bollocks is completely irrelevant?
|
On January 08 2012 05:31 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 05:16 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 05:11 SeaSwift wrote:On January 08 2012 04:55 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:
[quote]
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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? 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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin''' Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more. So you have faith in a God, but you don't think that changes your perspective on a book written specifically about that God? ... nonono, remove the idea of whether you believe in this God or not. For the sake of interpretation of this ancient text, it doesn't really matter if God is real or not. An atheist, theist, or whoever should be able to read the Bible and interpret it and arrive at a specific message. Whether or not you buy what the text is saying is a different story all together. Ah, I think I see where you're getting at. So, you're more trying to decipher the original intentions of the authors of various parts of the Bible (specifically the New Testament?) and/or the message it gives today - whether it is true or bollocks is completely irrelevant?
You're asking for something different though. The way I see it, it's this kind of historical-critical readings from Christian scholars that opened the doors to reevaluation of the Christian faith and its traditions. This both led to large ideological divides you see between different schools of Christian cultural and theological thought, and also was the catalyst to the sort of atheism you see in the Christian West. The deism that was rather popular amongst some intellectuals in Europe in the past and the rise of secularism was preceded by the Protestant Reformation and the surge of critical re-readings and re-translations of the Christian canon. I think there is a lot of value in higher criticism both for Christians and non-Christians.
You would be surprised how many atheists are in the masters and Ph.D program of my university's religious studies department in all the various fields.
|
A few things:
What you're talking about is not a science. A science requires you to have a testable hypothesis that you can run through the meatgrinder of multiple, repeatable experiments so that, in the end, you'll hopefully come up with a new theory through which you can approximate the world fairly accurately (at least until a new evidence comes along and knocks it down).. Biblical interpretation is no more a science than, say, the study of history. Even archaeology these days isn't considered a science; sure it uses scientific techniques in order to arrive at certain conclusions, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious archaeology professor these days in the USA who'll flat-out say that it's a "science" in the same way physics and chemistry and mathematics are sciences. (Yes, math is a science.) Post-processualism ftw, I suppose.
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.
Hell, making this assumption is like ... anti-science, if anything. Because this is the one thing you don't want to do as a scientist (or, to be honest, a serious scholar). There are a ton of things in the Bible that do have a basis in historical fact and are, in fact, true as far as we can see, but it's dangerous to say that, well, because X, Y, and Z have been verified, the entire work is true and/or completely devoid of exaggeration/alteration by the motives of the author(s). Historical context, political context, socioeconomic context, literary context, spatial context, linguistic context even -- these should all be considered before you start trying to "interpret" what a text means or whether or not it's "true."
Additionally, the implication that interpretation is meaningless if the source material isn't "accurate" makes me a sad, sad panda. If that were the case, most ancient studies scholars would be out of their jobs.
|
On January 08 2012 05:41 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 05:31 SeaSwift wrote:On January 08 2012 05:16 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 05:11 SeaSwift wrote:On January 08 2012 04:55 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:
[quote]
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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? 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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin''' Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more. So you have faith in a God, but you don't think that changes your perspective on a book written specifically about that God? ... nonono, remove the idea of whether you believe in this God or not. For the sake of interpretation of this ancient text, it doesn't really matter if God is real or not. An atheist, theist, or whoever should be able to read the Bible and interpret it and arrive at a specific message. Whether or not you buy what the text is saying is a different story all together. Ah, I think I see where you're getting at. So, you're more trying to decipher the original intentions of the authors of various parts of the Bible (specifically the New Testament?) and/or the message it gives today - whether it is true or bollocks is completely irrelevant? You're asking for something different though. The way I see it, it's this kind of historical-critical readings from Christian scholars that opened the doors to reevaluation of the Christian faith and its traditions. This both led to large ideological divides you see between different schools of Christian cultural and theological thought, and also was the catalyst to the sort of atheism you see in the Christian West. The deism that was rather popular amongst some intellectuals in Europe in the past and the rise of secularism was preceded by the Protestant Reformation and the surge of critical re-readings and re-translations of the Christian canon. I think there is a lot of value in higher criticism both for Christians and non-Christians. You would be surprised how many atheists are in the masters and Ph.D program of my university's religious studies department in all the various fields.
Oh yeah, many atheists get degrees in religious studies. It's a great field! But I think the same text can be interpreted the same for both religious and non-religious people. It's simply a matter of "They believe this" or "[I] believe this". I just happen to be apart of the latter group.
|
On January 08 2012 06:25 babylon wrote:A few things: What you're talking about is not a science. A science requires you to have a testable hypothesis that you can run through the meatgrinder of multiple, repeatable experiments so that, in the end, you'll hopefully come up with a new theory through which you can approximate the world fairly accurately (at least until a new evidence comes along and knocks it down).. Biblical interpretation is no more a science than, say, the study of history. Even archaeology these days isn't considered a science; sure it uses scientific techniques in order to arrive at certain conclusions, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a serious archaeology professor these days in the USA who'll flat-out say that it's a "science" in the same way physics and chemistry and mathematics are sciences. (Yes, math is a science.) Post-processualism ftw, I suppose. Show nested quote +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. Hell, making this assumption is like ... anti-science, if anything. Because this is the one thing you don't want to do as a scientist (or, to be honest, a serious scholar). There are a ton of things in the Bible that do have a basis in historical fact and are, in fact, true as far as we can see, but it's dangerous to say that, well, because X, Y, and Z have been verified, the entire work is true and/or completely devoid of exaggeration/alteration by the motives of the author(s). Historical context, political context, socioeconomic context, literary context, spatial context, linguistic context even -- these should all be considered before you start trying to "interpret" what a text means or whether or not it's "true." Additionally, the implication that interpretation is meaningless if the source material isn't "accurate" makes me a sad, sad panda. If that were the case, most ancient studies scholars would be out of their jobs.
Fair enough, scientific techniques are applied to the study of the text. I'd honestly say the act of exegesis is just a subsection of history. Studying an ancient text to determine its meaning and application to today's life.
I should have carefully worded my statement on accuracy and authenticity of the text. I am by no means one of the people that assume absolute inerrancy of the text. The Bible shouldn't be quoted for truth on geography, math,science, what have you. I believe it to be, "inerrant in all matters concerning soteriology" (bonus: tell me what church I'm a part of based on that quote).
Your right though, that statement is a little bit biased and presupposes a shit ton that I didn't flesh out in the OP. that's a good tip I'll have to implement in future writings.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On January 08 2012 05:31 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 05:16 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 05:11 SeaSwift wrote:On January 08 2012 04:55 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 02:02 Recognizable wrote:On January 08 2012 01:50 imjorman wrote:On January 08 2012 01:46 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:36 plated.rawr wrote:On January 08 2012 01:34 beg wrote:On January 08 2012 01:31 plated.rawr wrote:
[quote]
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 Are you christian? If so you are assuming there is a god, therefore you are biased right? 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.
Isn't it a proven fact this is just not true. Apart from the fact that it just isn't historical accurate alot is also lost in translation. One example I just read about, The word ''young woman'' was translated from Hebrew to greek to ''virgin''' Christian: yes. Therefore there is the presupposition that God exists, but I think that presupposition doesn't really interfere with biblical interpretation. You could say that what I do with my interpretations is changed because of my belief in God, but I'm reading and interpreting a text that talks about God when I preform biblical exegesis - nothing more. So you have faith in a God, but you don't think that changes your perspective on a book written specifically about that God? ... nonono, remove the idea of whether you believe in this God or not. For the sake of interpretation of this ancient text, it doesn't really matter if God is real or not. An atheist, theist, or whoever should be able to read the Bible and interpret it and arrive at a specific message. Whether or not you buy what the text is saying is a different story all together. Ah, I think I see where you're getting at. So, you're more trying to decipher the original intentions of the authors of various parts of the Bible (specifically the New Testament?) and/or the message it gives today - whether it is true or bollocks is completely irrelevant?
I think this is what he is trying to do yes. But I still find the idea of, Paul for example, encouraging sexism as a bad thing. Even if it was the standard at the time, that in no way justifies the actions, and delegitimises the Bible (and the people in it) as a moral guide.
|
On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
so in short the same-o same-o non-science/engineering phoney baloney?
|
On January 11 2012 15:29 evanthebouncy! wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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. so in short the same-o same-o non-science/engineering phoney baloney?
Well, it's annoying when people try to legitimize a study by suggesting that it's a science. (Not saying the OP consciously intended to do so, but this is why a ton of people like to assert their study = a science! when ... no.) Archaeology did the same thing way back when before people finally sat down and were like, "Yeah, time to admit that we're not actually a proper science ..." Again, there's a huge difference between statements like "Biblical interpretation is a science," and "Biblical interpretation uses scientific techniques sometimes."
The other annoying thing about stating it's a science and trying to gain legitimacy from that label is that it implies that sciences are inherently better than the other non-science fields, which is just flat-out wrong. Take pride in what you study.
|
On January 11 2012 15:58 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2012 15:29 evanthebouncy! wrote:On January 08 2012 01:24 plated.rawr wrote: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. so in short the same-o same-o non-science/engineering phoney baloney? Well, it's annoying when people try to legitimize a study by suggesting that it's a science. (Not saying the OP consciously intended to do so, but this is why a ton of people like to assert their study = a science! when ... no.) Archaeology did the same thing way back when before people finally sat down and were like, "Yeah, time to admit that we're not actually a proper science ..." Again, there's a huge difference between statements like "Biblical interpretation is a science," and "Biblical interpretation uses scientific techniques sometimes." The other annoying thing about stating it's a science and trying to gain legitimacy from that label is that it implies that sciences are inherently better than the other non-science fields, which is just flat-out wrong. Take pride in what you study.
I would not claim that the sciences are "better" than literature. But nobody claims Shakespeare informs our moral zeitgeist or policy. The same cannot be said about Biblical interpretation. For many people, it is a description of the state of the universe and therefore must either ground its validity, or give up its claim to scientific rigor.
|
On January 07 2012 15:55 vitruvia wrote:
what other holy books have you read ._.? cuz i've seen too much focus on christianity + branches and it became somewhat mundane, no one here actually thoroughly studied Hinduism, taoist, Buddhism, or maybe shinto?
well every other religion you named doesnt have a "holy book". In fact a korean buddist canon can be several meters of bookshelves full with books.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
