Scriptural literacy

[joobz]

Not applying the required principles of literature evaluation to the Bible is false. Hope that clears it up. If not-then you probably are in serious need of a brain transplant. : )

For the Record. I think Piggy has done a fair job of highlighting what some of those principles are.

If you apply any amount of scholarship to it, it's actually fairly easy to establish that they're interpreting it incorrectly.

Like Ted Lewis used to say, "A text cannot mean what it never meant". Yet these 2 consistently ignore all evidence regarding what the texts meant in their day and instead strain it through the filters of contemporary theology, which the original authors, redactors, and audience would not have recognized.

All of Radrook's allegedly Biblical theology does just that.

When anyone brings in actual historical and textual scholarship, Radrook counters with some modern doctrine that has nothing to do with the ancient texts, or dredges up some completely bogus pseudo-scholarship.

Amazing.

 

[Radrook]

Deviating a subject away from what a person has said via misrepresentation or strawman doesn't make for discussion. It makes for nothing, which is what strawman essentially is-NOTHING.

 

[joobz]

Deviating a subject away from what a person has said via misrepresentation or strawman doesn't make for discussion. It makes for nothing, which is what strawman essentially is-NOTHING.

What strawman?

You claimed that to interpret the bible, we must use the "principles of literature evaluation".

I said that Piggy seems to have presented what some of those principles must be. Primarily, that the text must be evalauted based upon the meaning that the text would have had at it's time of authorship.


Do you believe this is false?

 

[Radrook]

Neither is discussion possible with those who feign biblical expertise, [of whom there are a significant number on this forum] while showing crass ignorance of its fundamentals. Such individuals will defend inaccuracies to the death and proceed to attract a host of others who will also put forth and defend their inaccuracies to the death. Ultimately if they cannot convince via logic or biblical proof they will strive to shout down or swamp the opposition who will be forced to desist for the sake of sanity whereupon the self proclaimed biblical experts will commence mutual admiration congratulatory backslapping ritual. That's why Jesus told his disciples not to insist-it's time-wasting.

 

[Mark Felt]

Radrook, I'm just going to throw this out: Should the bible be read differently to other books in order to get all that can be got from it? If so, why?

 

[Toke]

There are 20-30000 different christian sects, all reading the bible differently.

So at least all but one must be scriptural illiterate, right?.

 

[joobz]

Neither is discussion possible with those who feign biblical expertise, [of whom there are a significant number on this forum] while showing crass ignorance of its fundamentals. Such individuals will defend inaccuracies to the death and proceed to attract a host of others who will also put forth and defend their inaccuracies to the death. Ultimately if they cannot convince via logic or biblical proof they will strive to shout down or swamp the opposition who will be forced to desist for the sake of sanity whereupon the self proclaimed biblical experts will commence mutual admiration congratulatory backslapping ritual. That's why Jesus told his disciples not to insist-it's time-wasting.

Were you attempting to answer my post?

Let's go even simpler here:

Do you agree/disagree with the following statement?

Text must be evaluated and intepreted through the context of the time that it was written.

 

[Radrook]

Radrook, I'm just going to throw this out: Should the bible be read differently to other books in order to get all that can be got from it? If so, why?

There seems to be a self-generating misunderstanding concerning my position. Please note that my argument isn't one of elevating the Bible above all other literary works. My argument is one of approaching the Bible as all other a literary works are approached and evaluating it accordingly. My objections are against those who feel justified in to ignoring literary evaluation principles, such as context, when it comes it the Bible but who will vehemently insist in applying them when it comes to other literature. Such inconsistency is unjustifiable, unethical, and smacks of a dishonest effort to besmirch at all costs.

 

[joobz]

My objections are against those who feel justified in to ignoring literary evaluation principles, such as context, when it comes it the Bible but who will vehemently insist in applying them when it comes to other literature. Such inconsistency is unjustifiable, unethical, and smacks of a dishonest effort to besmirch at all costs.

I agree, that such inconsistency would be wholly dishonest. However, it isn't clear where you are seeing these inconsistencies. Perhaps you can provide some examples to start the discussion.

 

[Radrook]

There are 20-30000 different christian sects, all reading the bible differently.

So at least all but one must be scriptural illiterate, right?.

Those claiming impossible to detect biblical illiteracy regardless of claims to the contrary are those who refuse to apply the principles I am being forced to keep mentioning ad infinitum due to a stubborn and annoying refusal to acknowledge their existence. Which makes discussion burdensome and ultimately unproductive.

BTW

The professions have agreed-upon or standard universally accepted ways of identifying quacks and their quackery. So does literature evaluation.

 

[Toke]

The problem with "context of the time it was written" is that you end up with moral values of a different time.

Therefore context is redefined to let you get a result somewhat suitable for modern society.
Some christians take that a step too far and end up with whatever they want.

 

[Moochie]

Whatever arguments she heard they definitely didn't instruct her on at least the basics of correct literature evaluation techniques. And that's the whole problem here. People com e on this forum posturing as being biblically knowledgeable and fully capable of evaluating a literary work properly. Then their ignorance begins to show when they insist on ignoring the rules. Then their only option is mutual backslapping and chortling while praising one another on how clever they are and how stupid everyone who evaluates literature in accordance with the rules is. A real travesty of errors followed by buffoonery as a catharsis. Something totally unexpected on a skeptics forum which purportedly is supposed to attract critical thinkers.

Nevertheless, we'd have to be a credulous bunch if we were to believe the interpretations of scripture according to anyone, let alone an anonymous voice in a place such as this.

I have my own ideas as to meanings of all kinds of writings, including those in the bible, arrived at over the course of many years, and influenced by scholars and non-scholars alike, and subject to revision as new insights are arrived at or presented. These ideas are for my own edification, and I feel no desire to convince anyone of anything.


M.

 

[joobz]

The problem with "context of the time it was written" is that you end up with moral values of a different time.

But that is exactly what must be considered if we are to actually apply the same standards of literary interpretation as Radrook is demanding.

 

[Toke]

But that is exactly what must be considered if we are to actually apply the same standards of literary interpretation as Radrook is demanding.

Maybe a bit unclear, let me try again.
The problem with "context of the time it was written" is that you end up with moral values of a different time. some iron age goatherds.

Therefore christians redefine context to get a result somewhat suitable for modern society.
Theology is a lively field, there is alot of redefining to be done, and it never stops.

 

[Piggy]

Neither is discussion possible with those who feign biblical expertise, [of whom there are a significant number on this forum] while showing crass ignorance of its fundamentals. Such individuals will defend inaccuracies to the death and proceed to attract a host of others who will also put forth and defend their inaccuracies to the death. Ultimately if they cannot convince via logic or biblical proof they will strive to shout down or swamp the opposition who will be forced to desist for the sake of sanity whereupon the self proclaimed biblical experts will commence mutual admiration congratulatory backslapping ritual. That's why Jesus told his disciples not to insist-it's time-wasting.

What are these fundamentals, Radrook?

In other threads, you have consistently insulted recognized Biblical scholars, accusing them of being out to "deny" things which are merely the tenets of your modern theology, while dredging up bogus non-scholarship such as folks who claim that animal bones are proof that the Nephilim walked the earth and such.

And now you're attempting to insult me, when you have no standing to do so.

I would like to know:

1. What are these principles you keep refering to?

2. What are your credentials? Who have you studied under, and where? What books have they published? What digs have they worked on? What courses have you taught, and where?

3. Would you care to suggest a section of text as an example so that we can see how these principles of scholarship work?

 

[Piggy]

There seems to be a self-generating misunderstanding concerning my position. Please note that my argument isn't one of elevating the Bible above all other literary works. My argument is one of approaching the Bible as all other a literary works are approached and evaluating it accordingly. My objections are against those who feel justified in to ignoring literary evaluation principles, such as context, when it comes it the Bible but who will vehemently insist in applying them when it comes to other literature. Such inconsistency is unjustifiable, unethical, and smacks of a dishonest effort to besmirch at all costs.

Who are these people?

 

[Piggy]

Those claiming impossible to detect biblical illiteracy regardless of claims to the contrary are those who refuse to apply the principles I am being forced to keep mentioning ad infinitum due to a stubborn and annoying refusal to acknowledge their existence. Which makes discussion burdensome and ultimately unproductive.

BTW

The professions have agreed-upon or standard universally accepted ways of identifying quacks and their quackery. So does literature evaluation.

Can you be more specific, please?

Can you give some examples of Biblical interpretation properly done, and improperly done?

 

[Piggy]

Oops, it appears that I thought Radrook was responding to me when he wasn't. Perhaps he has me on ignore.

If I were him, I sure would.

 

[joobz]

Maybe a bit unclear, let me try again.
The problem with "context of the time it was written" is that you end up with moral values of a different time. some iron age goatherds.

No need to clarify. I knew exactly what you meant.

It's for that reason, we see anachranstic moral codes in the bible (e.g., slavery) which shows god/jesus as condoning the practice. It's extremely understandable why these lines are in the bible from the standpoint of the bible as written by men.

Therefore christians redefine context to get a result somewhat suitable for modern society.
Theology is a lively field, there is alot of redefining to be done, and it never stops.

That is why religion tends to be born out of the culture and not vice versa.

BUt this point seems to be in contention with what Radrook is saying. He claims that we need to apply a scholarly look at the bible. The redefining you describe is in stark contrast to this demand and it seems to be exactly what Radrook is arguing against.

 

[volatile]

Oops, it appears that I thought Radrook was responding to me when he wasn't. Perhaps he has me on ignore.

If I were him, I sure would.

The chances of that are extraordinarily high. When he gets a whiff that he's discussing with someone who actually knows what they're talking about, he's straight to the ignore button.