All aboard…The LoShonta Express is leaving reality in about 5 minutes of this day and time and hour…
Man...I would advise staying off that Lo Shonta Express...I hear it's a great ride and a fee falling experience but the sudden stop at the end tends to be a bit jarring to the senses....
Don't you mean the reader's interpretation of the author's interpretation of what the author meant?
That's why there's so many different term papers and dissertations on what the white whale in Moby Dick means.
Interestingly enough, if you asked Melville why a white whale, he'd probably shrug his shoulders and say, "It sounded good."
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant
The phrasing is so awkward, ineffectual. The author interprets what he meant? Why would an author need or want to do this. Doesn't the (skilled) author say what he means? When would one ever interpret what they meant? Your word choice isn't working.
Would I be rude to point out that Mike has hijacked this thread and it has turned into just another thread with Mike's vain babblings having overtaken the original intent?
If they were really vain babblings everyone would ignore what I write. But because they are right on target, many feel a need to counter them.
I did not HIJACK this thread, I commented on penworks post, and in the process I DISAGREED with this thread's original intent. I used very right on comments to say PFAL did not suck. You care little with other major derailments of threads, but when it comes to my right on comments disagreeing with and disrupting your applecart, then you cry "derailment."
Your crying that I hijacked this thread demonstrates that you have no argument against my comments.
Interpretation = the action of explaining the meaning of something.
This would be possible if the author is alive and is explaining what he or she meant in writing the passage.
With an ancient book like the Bible – the writers have passed away (hold all your clamoring about God is not dead until you hear me out, please – and see my *footnote)…That leaves us with a different objective and there’s at least a few ways to reach that (again I'll touch on that with the below * footnote).
A realistic goal is trying to discover what the author MEANT. When we’re looking for meaning – we should look at what the message MEANT to the original recipients. Usually that’s not too difficult because we can look at what the reaction was to the message, if there were any directives to follow, etc.
Also, it’s possible a prophecy could have an immediate fulfilment and also foreshadow a greater event- see Bible Hub: commentaries on Isaiah 7:14andWikipedia: Isaiah 7:14and compare the passage of the prophet Isaiah addressing King Ahaz of Judah and telling him he will be given a sign the siege will be broken – and then compare Matthew 1:23,24.
~ ~ ~ ~
The problem with comparing apples to oranges – like your analogy of comparing the Bible or parts of the Bible to a technical textbook or recipe book - the problem is that you are comparing things that are so very different – they are incomparable!
I mean - how are apples and oranges alike? Okay – they’re both fruit…come from seeds…good to eat…grow on trees…
But the Bible compared to a technical manual, math book, recipe book – well…the Bible and math books mention numbers…the Bible and technical manuals mention specifications – like the dimensions for the tabernacle and the temple…the Bible and recipe books mention food prep, diets...but hopefully these rather nebulous comparisons are not what you're trying to make - or are you?
Could you be more specific in your concern: “Some sections are like literature, and some sections look more like technical writings, where getting the cake recipe rightly divided, or not, will make a difference in what that cake tastes like.” Are you trying to replicate the unleavened bread?
~ ~ ~ ~
Also, could you elaborate on what problems you foresee when you said this: “broad brush of categorizing the entire Bible as like man-made literature, and inviting all sorts of private interpretations.” Sounds like you’re going back to the false issue we just discussed about “the Bible interprets itself”. That’s odd – you started off this post with “Moving on, from the Bible interpreting itself…” Seems like you’re going in circles rather than moving on.
~ ~ ~ ~
And lastly, could you clarify this statement of yours: “PLUS, those sections of the Bible that are more in the category of spanning the wide range of human feelings, must be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like sections of scripture.” Could you give an example of a passage that would be in the category of human feelings and how it should be handled and interpreted to fit with the more technical-text like (whatever that is) sections of scripture.
~ ~ ~ ~
*footnote:
I believe our intuition should be integral with our more analytical study of the Scriptures...But it’s important to realize that it’s not perfect and it can be misinterpreted or even compromised by a seared conscience – certain passages likeProverbs 16:25andJudges 21:25will attest to that – we find that one’s feelings can be wrong, and not all inner leanings should be heeded. Because of our sin nature, we are often prone to error and poor judgment. If relying only upon our own powers of discernment, we can be led astray.
I believe people are created in God’s image and as such we reflect some unique characteristics of our Creator – like a moral compass, the ability to judge what is right from wrong and act accordingly. At times we may acquire knowledge without obvious deliberation. Perhaps that is what Ephesians 1:17is talking about - “that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you…”
People are not robots. We have freedom of will and some passages seem to suggest the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakesProverbs 2:3-5, Ecclesiastes 7:12, Psalm 37:23Psalm 111:10, andJames 1:5 .
I do not disparage the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ inJohn 7:17“Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.”...I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with how our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages likeJohn 16:13andI John 2:27.
What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's intent.
Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on.
If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life.
If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want. All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death. He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it.
No you’re not being rude at all! Matter of fact you’re absolutely right.
But you know me - I never write anyone or any discussion off - there’s always hope. Besides - it ain’t over until it’s over.
I do appreciate you chiming in - and I’ve tried to be on my best behavior since the last time we’ve talked about this.
You might think this is a waste of time - and you might be right…I’m not looking to convince or convert anyone to my way of thinking…and I enjoy the freedom to think and choose a response as we all have on this site…
believe it or not I actually have been enjoying this recent back and forth with Mike - because I think we’ve both been somewhat civil about our disagreements. I’ve told him at least twice on this thread it’s okay to disagree - just try to be honest and say why rather than spinning up more nonsense…
Maybe the Socratic method is going slow - and maybe it’s been 2 steps forward and 1 step back - but that’s still some progress…I mean we kinda got over “the Bible interprets itself” false issue - at least a little bit - because now we’re discussing HOW a student of the Bible can or is supposed to interpret the Bible . That’s a big step in the right direction. Anyway I like some of the challenges Mike can bring to any thread cuz it gets me to re-examine why I look at the Bible a certain way and in that is another challenge to see if I can properly articulate my thought process.
I started this thread and yes the intent was - and in my mind still is - to state why PFAL sucks…if anyone wants to come on this thread and disagree saying PFAL does NOT suck - I’m okay with that - just don’t give me nonsense for your reasons why you think that.so far, every poster has given specifics on why they think it sucks.
If someone wants to start a thread of why PFAL does not suck - I say go for it. I’ve already expressed a few cool things I got out of it and wouldn’t be shy to say them on that thread - but I certainly wouldn’t agree with the idea that PFAL is the gold standard of Bible study or whatever category you want to place it in as being representative of perfection.
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
I think you mixed it up for all readers. Where is the hamster in this model? Oh wait I mean the conduit. The writer not the author who wrote like SIT bypassing his mind. No that can’t work the mind had to be involved.
You left out the writer. They are a person too.
And the reader is left in a state of suspended angst. Did they gasp get something wrong from the author by following a personality trait of the writer? Did they really understand the remote author speaking through the writer?
No fundamentalism departs from reality there. So much bullshonta.
If they were really vain babblings everyone would ignore what I write. But because they are right on target, many feel a need to counter them.
I did not HIJACK this thread, I commented on penworks post, and in the process I DISAGREED with this thread's original intent. I used very right on comments to say PFAL did not suck. You care little with other major derailments of threads, but when it comes to my right on comments disagreeing with and disrupting your applecart, then you cry "derailment."
Your crying that I hijacked this thread demonstrates that you have no argument against my comments.
Aaaannnnnd here is the ego flaring again.
Sorry my guy I tend to answer everyone. It’s called a conversation. If you would unstick your ears and lay off the mic button you would get that.
As an honest evaluation you seem quite confused and in denial with respect to proven fallacies. You keep recycling arguments and they keep getting shot down 100 percent.
No you are not right on target. You are a screaming hamster on a wheel garnering attention. Your target is the same wheel you were on 20 years ago.
What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's inten
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
So, how is this any different?
God gives his revelation to a man, the man interprets what God meant. The reader reads what the man wrote, the reader interprets what the man meant that God meant.
Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on.
Ok. Modern books to ancient is a misnomer. There were no ancient books but handwritten tablets, scrolls, papyrus, etc. Most people in ancient times were illeterate and ancient literary works were typically read aloud in group settings. One of the things you are stumbling with is reading modern day practices into ancient history. These practices were not limited to secular works but religous as well. In Israel the scrolls were kept in the temple until Israel was carried away by the Assyrians. Same holds true for the souther kingdom as well, scrolls were in the temple until they were carried away into Babylon. The synagogues that cropped up in these conquering empires was where the scrolls were eventually kept. So there is no apples to apples comparison with ancient lit vs. modern lit. So there were no Bibles in homes because the first printed Bible didn't come into existance until 1455 with the invention of the printing press that produced the Gutenberg Bible.
49 minutes ago, Mike said:
If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life.
Jesus understood his mission from scripture but he most likely used the Septuagint, which will likely make you flip your fundamentalist bic. The Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew and was very common in Jesus day and came into prominence around the 200 B.C. Why was the Septuagint popular? Because many, many Judeans no longer spoke Hebrew or understood it after long captivities inside conquering empires. So, there were multiple intrepretation everywhere. Not to mention that the Babylonian Talmud had come into prominence amongst jews all across the ancient world. That book is extremely twisted but it was the basis of the religious leaders of their day. Jesus confronted this practice when referring to the traditions of men that religious leaders held in greater esteem than the Torah, and other Old Testament writings. To say Jesus was kept from multiple intrepretations ignores history and also runs cross purposes with scripture because Jesus was tempted in all things as we are yet without sin. Naturally he would have been tempted to use ungodly intrepretations of scripture and the earth was steeped in them then, same as today. The world was no less a wilderness in Jesus day from today.
49 minutes ago, Mike said:
If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want. All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death. He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it.
Do you really think that Jesus had access to a book that gave him "tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it."?
Life didn't work that way back then. He would have first been taught orally by his parents and then from the synagogues and temples. Culturally and historically how it worked. I can garuantee you that Joseph never gave Jesus "The Messiah's Manual to Saving the World" that had all this tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it. Technical writing wasnt a thing back then.
I give you the example of Jesus spending a few days in the Temple reasoning and disputing with the elders and Drs when he was 12. That's how they did it back then. They would discuss scriptural matters in the temple/synagogues where they would be exposed to any number of intrepretations from any number of people present. That's why Paul went to the Synagogues to reason with Judeans concerning Christ. They had scrolls there for reference and discussion.
God gives his revelation to a man, the man interprets what God meant. The reader reads what the man wrote, the reader interprets what the man meant that God meant.
What you described there was an impotent god with no foreknowledge.
When the True God gives a revelation to a man, that man GETS IT RIGHT, or otherwise God would be wasting His time. God then sticks around to help readers get the right interpretation if they are willing to do the necessary work.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
Again, no answer to my questions. As usual. What are you so afraid of?
I'll try to ask it another way.
An author writes something. In order for the author to understand what he means, he must interpret himself? So the author is doing double work because he couldn't write what he meant, nor understand what he meant the first time? He had to interpret what he meant? Huh?
What kind of author does this? One who hasn't slept in weeks because of a meth binge? A paranoid schizophrenic?
What you described there was an impotent god with no foreknowledge.
No, what I'm describing is a perfect God dealing with fallible human beings.
11 hours ago, Mike said:
When the True God gives a revelation to a man, that man GETS IT RIGHT, or otherwise God would be wasting His time. God then sticks around to help readers get the right interpretation if they are willing to do the necessary work.
You mean to tell me, God, in his foreknowledge couldn't see that errors would creep in and couldn't adjust the text accordingly?
If your claim is true, then you just nullified the reason for PLAF. God would have gotten it right the first time and there would be no need for revision or God having to waste his time sticking around helping the reader get the right interpretation.
When the True God gives a revelation to a man, that man GETS IT RIGHT, or otherwise God would be wasting His time. God then sticks around to help readers get the right interpretation if they are willing to do the necessary work.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
120
259
157
205
Popular Days
Nov 2
154
Oct 30
111
Nov 3
106
Nov 4
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 120 posts
T-Bone 259 posts
OldSkool 157 posts
Nathan_Jr 205 posts
Popular Days
Nov 2 2022
154 posts
Oct 30 2022
111 posts
Nov 3 2022
106 posts
Nov 4 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
penworks
VPW's statement that the Bible interprets itself is nonsense. The act of interpretation of any text is done by the reader of the text. People interpret what they read. They are the ones who give it me
waysider
And in doing so, he was violating his own "To Whom it is Written" rule.
Charity
What I see in what you wrote Chockfull is that we were meant to have a relationship with the class - you know the one that replaced our relationship with Christ. It was our lord in that it had power,
Posted Images
OldSkool
Man...I would advise staying off that Lo Shonta Express...I hear it's a great ride and a fee falling experience but the sudden stop at the end tends to be a bit jarring to the senses....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Cool.
My wife suggested my tombstone should read:
He meant well
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Love that!
we caught David B's American Utopia on Prime video - I had to get that on my phone! such an interesting guy from some stuff I read about him
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
David B is a musical gene-yoos...imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yep love David Byrne and the Talking Heads so unique growing up
”Same as it ever was”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
81. Gets you started on this
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think you nailed it accurately, for modern literature.
But I don't think God had His writers handle things that way.
There the Author's interpretation of what the Author meant is TRUE, and the reader's interpretation, where it differs, is WRONG.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You have evidence of this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The phrasing is so awkward, ineffectual. The author interprets what he meant? Why would an author need or want to do this. Doesn't the (skilled) author say what he means? When would one ever interpret what they meant? Your word choice isn't working.
Can you rewrite this for clarity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If they were really vain babblings everyone would ignore what I write. But because they are right on target, many feel a need to counter them.
I did not HIJACK this thread, I commented on penworks post, and in the process I DISAGREED with this thread's original intent. I used very right on comments to say PFAL did not suck. You care little with other major derailments of threads, but when it comes to my right on comments disagreeing with and disrupting your applecart, then you cry "derailment."
Your crying that I hijacked this thread demonstrates that you have no argument against my comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What I showed was that in modern books we have two kinds. One where the author encourages wild interpretations, and one where the author encourages tight following of the author's intent.
Yes, comparing modern books to ancient can be dicey, but it is only this tight versus loose following of the author's intent that I am focused on.
If there were multiple interpretations of the Bible possible, then Jesus Christ could have never known for sure what his mission was, and that it literally meant he had to sacrifice his life.
If I am going to look to the Bible for guidance, it is the kind of guidance Jesus got from the scriptures that I want. All of life is at stake, and a dumb reader's interpretation of the scriptures just doesn't fit with the precision that was needed for Jesus to declare war on death. He needed very tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks. T-Bone I appreciate this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think you mixed it up for all readers. Where is the hamster in this model? Oh wait I mean the conduit. The writer not the author who wrote like SIT bypassing his mind. No that can’t work the mind had to be involved.
You left out the writer. They are a person too.
And the reader is left in a state of suspended angst. Did they gasp get something wrong from the author by following a personality trait of the writer? Did they really understand the remote author speaking through the writer?
No fundamentalism departs from reality there. So much bullshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Aaaannnnnd here is the ego flaring again.
Sorry my guy I tend to answer everyone. It’s called a conversation. If you would unstick your ears and lay off the mic button you would get that.
As an honest evaluation you seem quite confused and in denial with respect to proven fallacies. You keep recycling arguments and they keep getting shot down 100 percent.
No you are not right on target. You are a screaming hamster on a wheel garnering attention. Your target is the same wheel you were on 20 years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Only two? That seems a bit restrictive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, how is this any different?
God gives his revelation to a man, the man interprets what God meant. The reader reads what the man wrote, the reader interprets what the man meant that God meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ok. Modern books to ancient is a misnomer. There were no ancient books but handwritten tablets, scrolls, papyrus, etc. Most people in ancient times were illeterate and ancient literary works were typically read aloud in group settings. One of the things you are stumbling with is reading modern day practices into ancient history. These practices were not limited to secular works but religous as well. In Israel the scrolls were kept in the temple until Israel was carried away by the Assyrians. Same holds true for the souther kingdom as well, scrolls were in the temple until they were carried away into Babylon. The synagogues that cropped up in these conquering empires was where the scrolls were eventually kept. So there is no apples to apples comparison with ancient lit vs. modern lit. So there were no Bibles in homes because the first printed Bible didn't come into existance until 1455 with the invention of the printing press that produced the Gutenberg Bible.
Jesus understood his mission from scripture but he most likely used the Septuagint, which will likely make you flip your fundamentalist bic. The Septuagint was translated into Greek from Hebrew and was very common in Jesus day and came into prominence around the 200 B.C. Why was the Septuagint popular? Because many, many Judeans no longer spoke Hebrew or understood it after long captivities inside conquering empires. So, there were multiple intrepretation everywhere. Not to mention that the Babylonian Talmud had come into prominence amongst jews all across the ancient world. That book is extremely twisted but it was the basis of the religious leaders of their day. Jesus confronted this practice when referring to the traditions of men that religious leaders held in greater esteem than the Torah, and other Old Testament writings. To say Jesus was kept from multiple intrepretations ignores history and also runs cross purposes with scripture because Jesus was tempted in all things as we are yet without sin. Naturally he would have been tempted to use ungodly intrepretations of scripture and the earth was steeped in them then, same as today. The world was no less a wilderness in Jesus day from today.
Do you really think that Jesus had access to a book that gave him "tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it."?
Life didn't work that way back then. He would have first been taught orally by his parents and then from the synagogues and temples. Culturally and historically how it worked. I can garuantee you that Joseph never gave Jesus "The Messiah's Manual to Saving the World" that had all this tight, precise, detailed, TECHNICAL advice on how to do it. Technical writing wasnt a thing back then.
I give you the example of Jesus spending a few days in the Temple reasoning and disputing with the elders and Drs when he was 12. That's how they did it back then. They would discuss scriptural matters in the temple/synagogues where they would be exposed to any number of intrepretations from any number of people present. That's why Paul went to the Synagogues to reason with Judeans concerning Christ. They had scrolls there for reference and discussion.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What you described there was an impotent god with no foreknowledge.
When the True God gives a revelation to a man, that man GETS IT RIGHT, or otherwise God would be wasting His time. God then sticks around to help readers get the right interpretation if they are willing to do the necessary work.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Again, no answer to my questions. As usual. What are you so afraid of?
I'll try to ask it another way.
An author writes something. In order for the author to understand what he means, he must interpret himself? So the author is doing double work because he couldn't write what he meant, nor understand what he meant the first time? He had to interpret what he meant? Huh?
What kind of author does this? One who hasn't slept in weeks because of a meth binge? A paranoid schizophrenic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, what I'm describing is a perfect God dealing with fallible human beings.
You mean to tell me, God, in his foreknowledge couldn't see that errors would creep in and couldn't adjust the text accordingly?
If your claim is true, then you just nullified the reason for PLAF. God would have gotten it right the first time and there would be no need for revision or God having to waste his time sticking around helping the reader get the right interpretation.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He does?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Once upon a time, in a land far away, there lived a hard headed man named Paul...
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And the list could go on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.