The Library - 2012-09-27

« first day (358 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4222 days later) »

6:41 AM

@J.C.Salomon I'm not sure if it is objectively true to say the reference 'is not needed' - as that is a subjective issue. A Christian may argue the opposite (ie that the answer is incomplete without it). It is best in my opinion to leave that decision to the answerer whatever our personal views - we are, of course, free to vote/comment as we please and provide answers that we prefer :) — Jack Douglas 11 secs ago

tricky tricky issue for this community

@JonEricson, @Monica, and others, your input would be gratefully received

3 hours later…

10:06 AM

@JonEricson I wonder if the user who's answer you accepted is a fan of Ubuntu or a Turk. Their user name could be a scramble of the letters from the former, but at face value in Turkish it means "forget this".

@JackDouglas Tricky indeed, but I think your comment is on target. Strictly avoiding the Christian interpretations just because it is an OT text doesn't seem like something we want to dictate. Besides, the answer wasn't suggesting it even as a primary interpretation, only showing how it can fit into a bigger theological construct.

3 hours later…

12:50 PM

@JackDouglas I'll be in training all day today; I'll try to get back to this tonight. Quick thought: I think the answer is flawed because of that, but that's what downvotes are for. On the other hand, those in the doctrinal majority need to be especially careful to not create flawed answers thereby; we all need to be careful of that, but the majority will get the upvotes anyway, weakening our site. More later I hope.

2 hours later…

2:56 PM

@JackDouglas and @Caleb I am with @MonicaCellio on this one. Even though I whole-heartedly agree with the theology of the answer provided, it is just that - a theological application of a Hebrew gnome.

I always get in trouble in this arena though, because I tend to speak out way too much against too much theology in the hermeneutical cereal. Then come the normal ... "well, you CAN'T completely separate them ..." and yes, that's true

but hermeneutics is about trying as hard as possible to find an objective understanding of what is being said.

/endminirant

@swasheck I'm assuming that Kazark believes that something about the trinity is being 'said' in Ecclesiastes 4:12, aren't you?

For the record, on balance, I don't - but of course, that is not the point.

The question is not "Is Kazark right" (that's a voting issue, as Monica mentions) - the question for the community is whether we actively discourage certain 'hermeneutics' in answers, by saying "this is not a good way to answer on this site" rather than "I don't personally like this because..."

3:15 PM

@JackDouglas i'm also assuming that Kazark believes something is being said ... but that's indefensible given the text. It is a theological interpretation

And I agree that's not the point ... the point is the debate that comes up periodically on this site ... "how much bias/theology/personal interpretation is too much for BH.SE?"

it's unfortunate because so many of my fellow Christians seem to think that this is a "G/godless" approach and that it "doesn't allow for the Holy Spirit." the reality is, though, that BH and Theology are different disciplines that have significant overlap. is Christianity the site that incorporates Theology, or is it more "practical?"

3:46 PM

@Caleb I had assumed the former and never imaginable the later to be a possibility. They have been to Taipei, for what that's worth: travel.stackexchange.com/q/7770

@swasheck my point is that all interpretations are theological - you are creating a false distinction in my view.

@swasheck hence this question is moot

as for 'indefensible' I challenge you to back that up (bearing in mind that I agree with you) - to do so in a way that meets your own standards would be a difficult task - you'd need to answer questions such as "In what way are numbers used symbolically in the Bible/OT" "What about the number 3 in particular" "What about in Ecclesiastes in particular"

the list goes on

And of course once you are all done, Kazark might still be right and us wrong

.

@swasheck I just caught up on the conversion. I think the best answers are those that can be judged true or false regardless of the theology of any party.

@JonEricson can you link to an example? I will then ask Bob what he thinks ;)

So, for instance, that answer could be made better by pointing out the interpretation is not universal.

@JackDouglas I think really unpopular interpretations don't have that problem.

@JonEricson universal among what set of people?

3:58 PM

@JackDouglas Let's see: "three strands = trinity" versus "some say three strands = trinity". Nobody can disagree with the second.

Better is to describe which hermeneutical approaches take that interpretation and why.

@JonEricson a good answer is not defined by writing things nobody can disagree with

I prefer someone to say what they think

@JackDouglas Hmmm...

Do you want all non-Christians on the site to caveat their answers with "but Christians believe..."

@JackDouglas Not necessarily. But some interpretations are more tenuous and doctrinally motivated than others.

I've got an answer somewhere that illustrates what I mean.

@JonEricson remember we are asking whether to comment "this is not really welcome on this site" or "I suggest xyz would be an improvement" - two very different things

A comment such as "I think your leap from the word 'three' to the doctrine of the trinity is fanciful" seems completely fair to me

4:05 PM

@JackDouglas I agree.

As @MonicaCellio points out, the trinity reference is not needed in the answer. From a Jewish perspective, this verse is Midrashically taken to refer to the Patriarchs. Not all of Abraham’s sons were worthy, similarly for Isaac, but Jacob’s sons had three righteous forebearers and so all turned out right since “a cord of three strands is not quickly broken”. — J. C. Salomon Sep 10 at 21:13

@JackDouglas We are and need to remain, welcoming.

I'm not sure J. C. Salomon's comment above is any less fanciful

@JackDouglas I'm not sure I see what the problem is.

I think this would be better in a supported answer.

@JackDouglas Ah! I think his point might have been to show that there are other fanciful answers out there.

So if you bring up one tenuous interpretation from one tradition, why not all of them?

:)

I don't think so, but we'd have to ask him (or her)

him (Joel)

4:09 PM

@JackDouglas Huh. We need some experts in interpretation around here!

2

;)

4

A: When is allegorization of scripture productive?

Abstract Using the historical-grammatical method, whether a text should be taken allegorically depends on the genre of the text. Usually, the author provides sufficient clues to the genre for us to accurately determine if a text is to be taken as something more than the surface meaning. Genre ...

I felt it was important to bring up "God as author", but I relegated it to the bottom of the page.

And made sure it was clear that that was just one way to look at metaphor.

But I suppose we can't force others to write that way, which is the problem.

@JonEricson I remember that question

.

I wonder whether @Monica meant to imply that all 'Christian' interpretations of OT texts are poor form - I'm pretty sure she didn't mean that but it is one way of reading her comment.

@JonEricson are you sure you meant to say that quite like that ;)

@JackDouglas I can see how that could be taken out of context!

Especially since we can via edits. ;)

What I mean is that we can encourage better answers, but if someone says, "No" we should let it alone.

And downvote/close/delete/etc.

@JackDouglas I wonder if she meant that Christian interpretations will naturally get voted up given our current demographics?

And so playing up that angle can make others feel unwelcome.

Here's the relevant meta-question:

2

Q: Are doctrinal answers ok?

This question asked about doctrine-based questions (and remains unresolved). My question is about answers. Are answers that assume a particular doctrinal stance acceptable here? If someone asks a Tanakh question, is "that means Jesus" or "that's a reference to Mary's perpetual virginity" valid...

discussion on-topic-definition answers

I don't think we have any agreement at all. :(

4:28 PM

(short break in class) -- I think Christian-specific interpretations of Tanakh texts are suspect, because clearly those texts existed for hundreds of years before the Christian interpretation came along. Just like Muhammad imagery in NT texts would be suspect. As for voting, @JonEricson understood what I meant -- because of our demographics, bad (theological) Christian answers will still get voted up because people agree, even if they're bad hermeneutics.

@MonicaCellio Which is a problem if better answers are hidden by popular answers.

@JackDouglas there is a good deal of truth in this statement - however, i've seen too many liberties taken in the name of "interpretation."

@MonicaCellio this too is potentially a thorny problem - but not one that is unique to our site

@JackDouglas perhaps "indefensible" is too strong. however, there is nothing in the surrounding context that would indicate in any way that this cord of three strands has anything to do with the nature of God. in this way, i find such exegetical leaps to be more theology/Christian living and less in line with the hermeneutical endeavor

@JonEricson for the hermeneutical endeavor i agree. hermeneutics is a practice rooted primarily in the evidence found within the text and other parallel sources. meaning is derived from this search. application and significance are further (and extremely valuable) uses of this information and underlying "meaning."

4:45 PM

@swasheck my problem with them is quite different - namely that I find myself unable to test them in any way so the 'leaps' have to be taken on trust. That's ok if I already implicitly trust everything you say, but it takes a lot to win that in the first place :)

@JackDouglas I can get behind this sentiment. They are not "unwelcome," but the injection of exegetical leaps, backed by (usually sound) theology, seems to push the envelope of hermeneutics

@swasheck actually I'd go further - when I see fanciful leaps it makes me re-examine their other reasoning

But I accept that is my personal approach not the rules of the site

@JackDouglas and that's very common. the series of leaps that i could see taking to support the argument in this answer would be a) this is an ANE gnome depicting the importance of interpersonal relationships, b) (prooftexts) show that within the trinity, perfect, pure relationship is found, c) profit?

@swasheck Maybe I should provide my own answer to that question. But it does involve several leaps of faith, so to speak.

i can see the leaps - but i find them irresponsible because the tendency is to discount the primary, underlying meaning focused on the importance of healthy interpersonal relationship

4:50 PM

@swasheck the number three does seem to have some symbolic significance in some texts though

@JackDouglas yeah --- train of thought got derailed en route

the conflation of "meaning" and "significance" is a very common thing

@JackDouglas at any rate i think that we're fundamentally coming from the same perspective, but you have an eye toward being a good mod/steward of the site and i'm somehow bent on soapboxing the hermeneutical method

:)

a hermeneutical method

ah

5:06 PM

sorry :-)

why?

I was teasing you a bit

but it's an appropriate distinction

i guess i should say "the hermeneutical method chose by the exegete" :)

5:20 PM

@JonEricson here's my comment on your answer (with which i agree)

I think that doctrine/theology is permissible only insofar as it is required to advance one's understanding of the meaning of the text in question - and should be clearly noted by the answerer. My understanding is that theology and doctrine are the necessary product of hermeneutics and one runs the risk of undermining the application of hermeneutics (namely, eisegesis) to that text if doctrine and theology are leveraged for explanation too early in the process. That said, I know that there are times when extant theology is needed to help resolve current exegetical issues. — swasheck 20 secs ago

5:41 PM

as an aside from all of this nonsense ... there are a few different layouts - and i think that the "analyze" page is incomplete but for now, can you go out and suggest changes/mods to thewashecks.dyndns.org:8888

if you want the source, then i'll post it on github ... or you can do save-as html

saw the jeremiah error ... whoopsie

need to fully validate the references

@JackDouglas 173 ms??? that took forever for you ... sorry

you jest :-)

most requests are 1.06 ms

@swasheck the UK is a long way away

at any rate ... it's not complete but i'm just tossing it out there for some ideas

the irony is that i can't access it from work

because dyndns is blocked here :)

@swasheck Looks like a good start.

What does the "analyze" tab do? (It gives me an error at the moment.)

Oh cool: thewashecks.dyndns.org:8888/stack/john%201:1

Or even: thewashecks.dyndns.org:8888/stack/john%201

This is really coming along. And at least in terms of function it's what I had imagined.

Are you only looking at questions for verse references?

5:54 PM

@JonEricson currently nothing

i took out the errors

so now it just gives you a junk page

@MonicaCellio - Hey, are you around?

i want syntax highlighting, but i have yet to come up with any sort of efficient way of doing it

i also want stats (parsing stats by passage)

@NeilFein She's been in an out here when there's a break in her class.

and then word links

@swasheck I saw a little of what you had yesterday. Looks interesting.

But I'm super excited about the questions next to the verses.

5:57 PM

@JonEricson trying to figure out some strategies for it without it getting too much like geocities/tripod

@swasheck Do you mean in terms of graphics/design?

@JonEricson - thanks.

@JonEricson yes ... a notable weakness of mine

@NeilFein No problem. (And welcome!)

Not even sure where I am, actually.

I know her from Writers.

5:59 PM

@swasheck I'm no help. But if we get something that works well, I bet we can find folks who know what they are doing.

@NeilFein Ah. This is the Biblical Hermeneutics room. We study the Bible (Jewish and Christian).

@MonicaCellio - If you're gonna be at the CT ren faire any time in the next month and a half, shoot me an email or ping me? I'll be playing there all five weekends.

@JonEricson - Cool, I'll have to peruse the site.

@JonEricson well currently the "works well" is somewhat of an issue

@swasheck That's ok. It's already a good prototype to show others what our ideas are.

It would be good to have a link back to the "ask a question" page of the site.

@JonEricson yeah - thought about that

@swasheck I've been noodling over how we can make it easier to index questions by verse. The simplest would be to have a convention that we encourage or enforce via edit.

6:11 PM

@JonEricson this python package that i found was pretty good. it does a good job of grabbing some of the most obscure references.

@JackDouglas Actually I didn't even read that part of his answer as a statement Ecclesiastes at all, I thought it was an application of the truth from that verse as applied in another quarter, almost a tangential note about where the subject comes up.

@Caleb konu?

@JonEricson Funny.

@JonEricson Sorry! My brains language filters are all screwed up today. Happens when I'm tried.

"Klaatu barada nikto"

@Caleb That makes sense. The question did ask: "Is it a reference to God...?"

6:25 PM

@Caleb ... are you turkish?

@swasheck Not by birth, but it's where I live and the language I speak every day. I use English more on StackExchange than anywhere else in life these days.

@Caleb i guess that was my question. friends in antalya had three, two born in colorado and one born in antalya. she considers herself a turk

@swasheck Who?

@Caleb you want names?

her name is, oddly enough, "Talya"

@swasheck Not if you don't want to give them, but there's a good chance I'd know them.

6:32 PM

Jim and Renata Bultema

also ... Mark Wilson (who lived in Izmir for a while) and his wife (whose name escapes me)

@swasheck I don't know her but do know her dad.

@Caleb small world - love that man

@swasheck Yup, him too. Of course his name is hard not to run across if you poke at Turkish history.

@Caleb exactly. how do you know them?

@swasheck James works at/runs a Christian center down there and that often hosts things like conferences etc. I've been down there a couple times. Not a church I work with directly but it's hard for circles not to have overlap in these parts.

6:36 PM

@Caleb exactly. i'd love to go work at spcc when i figure out what i'm going to do with my life

@swasheck I don't know him as well, but they run tours, sometimes lecture etc. We've crossed paths.

@Caleb so jim (james) is a graduate of denver seminary and he led a class tour that i went on about 16 months ago, which is where i met mark.

one of the best times of my life

@Caleb so what do you do in Turkey, if you're allowed to say

6:58 PM

@swasheck I wear many hats, but the cliff notes version is I serve along side a couple Turkish pastors doing church planting.

@Caleb nice - in what capacity

@NeilFein sorry, was for five minutes or so & just saw this, but back to class. Back in ~2 hours.

@swasheck It might be shorter if I listed things I don't do, such as ... um ...

7:17 PM

Nothing comes to mind. Most days I wish that was a longer list.

I'm ordained as a pastor/elder in the Turkish Protestant Reformed Church, serve as an elder at one church and in various ways to support a couple others.

7:31 PM

nice.

2 hours later…

9:28 PM

@NeilFein oh cool! I'm in Pittsburgh so I don't expect to get there, sorry! Are you doing solo stuff or are you playing with a group? (I seem to recall you have a band.)

« first day (358 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (4222 days later) »

Transcript for

Sep '1227

The Library

General discussion for hermeneutics.stackexchange.com

join this room
about this room

00:00

06:00

12:00

18:00

all times are UTC

site design / logo © 2024 Stack Exchange Inc; legal

mobile