The Library - 2014-04-04

« first day (912 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3684 days later) »

7:34 AM

@Davïd I do wonder if your definition is slightly too narrow, but I'm pretty sure the tag is also being mis-used. If the OP just means 'what did the author mean' by tagging authorial-intent then almost every exegesis question would have the tag.

My minor uncertainty with the way you've phrased the wiki is that to my mind it implies that 'authorial intent' questions are always exclusively calling for extra-biblical sources. Very often clues into authorial intent can come from the contextual evidence from within the texts too.

otoh we could keep the tag specifically for questions that ask for extra-biblical sources

8:03 AM

@JackDouglas Uh oh - well that's not good then. I'll do an edit; feel free to do the same, of course! :) The Meta.meta (Blog?) suggests keeping first two pages of tags well wikified; many are already, but this one wasn't and seemed a good place to start.

Also, just bumped into this:

2

worth popping into meta.BH.SE somewhere?

8:27 AM

@Davïd that sounds like good advice, though I think maybe the first page would be enough for a small site like us. textual-criticism is on-topic right now: do you think the blurb here makes sense? I'm thinking it could be adapted...

6 hours later…

2:08 PM

@Davïd Thanks for sharing. Now my answers or questions have more references. (In fact, they have no references).

2:55 PM

@jonericson wrote a great post over at Islam.SE that is also highly relevant here:

6

Q: Please vote based on quality

As a former moderator on one site that deals with religious texts, a user on the three strictly religious sites, and a participant on religious topics that pop up from time to time on other sites, I've come to appreciate votes that reflect objective quality in a post. I personally think atheists ...

discussion scope etiquette voting

3:09 PM

@PaulVargas I'm in the process of moving, took an important entrance exam yesterday, and am teaching a Greek course right now - too much on my plate. I hope to resume answering after Easter when I will have moved

3:43 PM

@Daи Yes it's a very useful read.

It seems like it is a much worse problem over there, but it would still be nice to make it required reading for all users here :)

@Daи Don't worry. I can wait. I'm convinced that you have something to say. Here I read that you're the guy, you know.

@PaulVargas haha I don't know about that. @Davïd is far smarter than I, I trust @swasheck 's analysis of the Greek more than my own, and many others have lots of great stuff to contribute here. No one person can be the SME on everything in the Bible

there's too much info out there

@JackDouglas Our community (I mean this room) is so small...

4:32 PM

@JackDouglas yeah I don't think we have as much an issue with it as they seem to

@PaulVargas yep, still building support and figuring out our trajectory. We have several competing trajectories right now, although to be fair, not all of them consider the other trajectories to be mutually exclusive - some think there is room for all of them, some of us don't

4:45 PM

@Daи One of the things I read on the way to writing that post on meta.Islam was The Collapse of Complex Business Models. The whole article is a great read, but I worry sometimes that this site is headed down the AT&T path. I think the solution is to find a happy medium between high standards and broad participation.

@JonEricson it is indeed a fine line, I'll read that as soon as I'm able

@JonEricson PS also, I'd love to get your vote (up or down) on this

@Daи No hurry. ;-)

@JonEricson I promise, it's a short meta post with the pertinent information in bold :P

(but it's getting longer as we speak :P)

@Daи My message got threaded wrongly. ;-)

@JonEricson ?

@JonEricson ahh ic

5:06 PM

@Daи I won't vote yet, but I think @Davïd's answer was excellent. More questions on individual's methods would be welcome, in my opinion.

@JonEricson I also upvoted his post haha

(gotta love meta)

2 hours later…

7:44 PM

@JonEricson I just read that article, good stuff

@JonEricson I think with the term 'hermeneutics' in our title, broad participation is here to stay. The goal is to eliminate the garbage that is mere personal (uninformed) opinion masquerading as the byproduct of an established hermeneutical method, but without abolishing hermeneutics altogether. Those goals conflict in several areas, which creates our current state of dissonance

I, for instance, am not all that interested in religious hermeneutics - I would rather ask on C.SE for that stuff, or elsewhere altogether

But when stated well even I am known to upvote folks who share religious interpretive methods when they don't appear to be ignorant of the cultural/historical, literary, and linguistic contexts of the text

it's when religious ideas become the central point of content and the poster is ignorant of these areas when I will DV, which happens a lot. Or when the OP does know what they're talking about but are more interested in giving answers than sharing methods.

@Daи How would you define religious hermeneutics? Are there sample questions?

I.e. I DV when folks focus on the end result of hermeneutics without showing us how they got there (show your work)

9

Q: Is dispensationalism a theological framework or a hermeneutical approach?

I most often hear about dispensationalism in the context of a theological framework wherein God’s relations with man are understood to be divided up into different periods of time, or dispensations, each having distinctly different properties. However, the term also shows up in the context of her...

hermeneutical-approaches

I would argue that it is a theological framework

but for most folks here, theological frameworks can be a part of a hermeneutic (rightfully so), so they can be eisegeted into the text (even if that theological belief came about long after the text was written and is thus highly anachronistic)

for most Christians, hermeneutics begins with theology

which creates a logical conundrum since they often claim to be sola scriptura, yet most of their beliefs come about very late in history, but I digress....

I'd like to see answers that begin with the text, show knowledge of the historical/cultural context, linguistic and literary setting, etc. and then get into theological stuff (if needed by the question, and only if)

there's plenty of places on the Internet to hear Christians' opinions on the texts

most of the places where you can hear opinions from folks versed in these contexts cost lots of money

@Daи well I became a Calvinist without ever reading Calvin or even really knowing such a thing exists, so I think there may be a flaw in your reasoning somewhere ;)

I'd like to see BH.SE be a place where this research is accessible and answers are informed

@JackDouglas I would argue that this has to do with ideas of Greek philosophy that have been in the world since the time the NT was written

You don't see Jews in early times thinking this way

reading the text changed my thinking a lot: I didn't have much other input

7:55 PM

but since fatalism/determinism is a fairly prevalent ideology from Greek philosophy, even if you are unaware of these origins, I can see that

@JackDouglas that discounts your entire life and the culture/environment you live in

we can't help but bring these frameworks to the text

@Daи what does?

the goal is to recognize them as much as possible and try to deal with the text with that cognizance

@JackDouglas that your thinking came solely from the text

that text was translated by someone with a bias

@Daи where did I say that?

the words used have philological histories

1 min ago, by Jack Douglas

reading the text changed my thinking a lot: I didn't have much other input

You misunderstood me

7:57 PM

I meant that you had lots of other input simply by having an English translation to read

@Daи and I never meant that I didn't

you thought you knew what I meant

but I guess you didn't spend much time pondering it

@JackDouglas And what do you think now about the doctrines of grace (another name for the same subject)?

@PaulVargas they are a great joy to me

@JackDouglas apparently I misunderstood you

@JackDouglas but my point was moreso in response to your statement about becoming a Calvinist without knowing about Calvin - my argument is that this mentality is embedded in our cultural experience

and thus wouldn't come solely from the text - but also the translation of the text, the meaning of the words in English and significance attached to them, it all has a history

so your point is plausible

How do you know I wasn't counter-cultural?

8:00 PM

@JackDouglas the idea comes from somewhere, original thought is rare - especially when it falls in line with already-established thinking

In other words, you don't know

you just assume

@JackDouglas no, most every ideology has a historical background

there are always influences of some sort

things don't occur in a vacuum

now you are just stating the obvious

@JackDouglas restating, yes

what makes you think I don't know that already?

or that I need it stating?

8:04 PM

@JackDouglas ? I was explaining my reasoning. I'm not following your intent here. I thought we were having a discussion

I think for us to have a discussion, you'll need to give what I say a bit more thought

otherwise it's more of a lecture

@JackDouglas that's what I was attempting to do, but you apparently disagree with my thinking.

'apparently'?

@Daи Labeling orthodox Calvinism "fatalism/determinism" is a caricature of that theology, if you ask me. Also of classical Greek philosophy when you get right down to it. ;-)

@JonEricson I didn't mean to equate the two, nor to imply that this was the only worldview in Greek philosophy. I simply meant that the ideas are prevalent in Western culture, especially in science but also in other fields

8:06 PM

@JonEricson @Daи A friend uses John 7:17, so that downplays hermeneutics and exegesis. But I wonder why there are many devout Christians do not interpret Scripture correctly? But I think that hermeneutics and exegesis help you to know and understand the meaning of a text.

@PaulVargas but what is 'correct' depends on your worldview. For some, the notion of 'correct' isn't as important, for others it is everything

What is 'correct' does not depend on your worldview

only what you think is correct

@JonEricson meaning that one has an influence on the other. For instance, Augustine was a Manichean Gnostic before developing many of his deterministic theological points

@JackDouglas which stems from your worldview, epistemology, etc. Sure.

and of course dome things are neither correct or incorrect, but that's a tangent ;)

@JackDouglas depends on your worldview, but sure. I would agree with you there

8:10 PM

The card paradox is a non-self-referential variant of the liar paradox constructed by Philip Jourdain. It is also known as the postcard paradox, Jourdain paradox or Jourdain's paradox. The paradox Suppose there is a card with statements printed on both sides: {|class="prettytable" |Front:||The sentence on the other side of this card is TRUE. |- |Back:||The sentence on the other side of this card is FALSE. |} Trying to assign a truth value to either of them leads to a paradox. # If the first statement is true, then so is the second. But if the second statement is true, then the first s...

@JackDouglas yes, I'm familiar with it. Again, though - worldview is important. A postmodern could say that one side is true for you and another is true for me. Another believes in absolute truth. Folks can believe all sorts of logical and illogical things

@Daи a postmodern couldn't say anything

@JackDouglas and yet does.

without getting him/herself tied up in knots

@Daи I think they don't

@JackDouglas you mean of substance (saying things of substance) then I presume? (trying to understand)

8:14 PM

@Daи "There is no truth". "what about that?". "er...."

there is nothing to be learned there

(thanks btw)

@JackDouglas ? they would assert that truth is relative (of course that in and of itself is a statement of absolute truth, and there's your liar/card paradox)

I'm not sure it is quite the same

in the paradox there is no consistent way to assign truth values to the statements

in the case of postmodernism there is

"they are wrong."

@JackDouglas true, I can't remember who, but an early Church Father used the liar's paradox in relation to scripture

to gnomic statements

everyone is... - all men are..., etc.

> One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” (Titus 1:12 ESV)

@JackDouglas @Daи It is a verse out of context. Jesus was speaking to the Jews who did not believe in Him.

So, although as a devout Christian, but if I do not apply the historical context, I do not analyze the text in the original language ... my interpretation will be incorrect, because the words of our current language have other origins, as Dan said.

8:25 PM

@PaulVargas not what I'm saying

what I'm saying is that my goal for this site is to be different from a religious site where talk of the Bible always goes straight to theology without discussing those contexts

I'd like to see BH.SE be a place where the historical/cultural, linguistic, and literary contexts are of primary importance, and then other views

but again, that is my opinion

and not all share it

@PaulVargas the issue is not offering the 'correct' interpretation, but one that addresses these things

you could address all those things and still miss the whole point of the verse'

so clearly those are not the end-all-be-all

but if I wanted a purely theological understanding of a text from a specific perspective, I'd go to C.SE or ask someone I trust

@Daи Cheer up, friend. Ha, ha.

I come here to learn about the culture, history, language, literary setting, etc.

hey Paul, I edited it for you rather than deleting it

@JonEricson yes I believe that may have been it

does it look good now?

8:30 PM

@AJHenderson Yes! Thanks!

Hi @AJH

hey Jack

not sure how I've never wandered in here before

@AJHenderson welcome aboard :)

@AJHenderson good to have you in here: I'm still curious how you knew @Paul was here though? just coincidence?

@JackDouglas he flagged his own post

8:34 PM

@Daи I have faith in what we are going to improve.

I spotted the flag and grabbed it quickly

the penny has dropped :)

@PaulVargas I don't think any of us agree on what 'improvement' looks like :P

@JackDouglas @AJHenderson As I said long ago, I don't have those privileges.

@Daи So, what do we do?

:'(

@PaulVargas haha if I knew the answer to that.... :P

@PaulVargas but this is why we have a lot of discussion on meta and whatnot

@PaulVargas I have made many proposals over the last year, as have others

for instance, I had proposed the adoption of a pseudo-neutrality as a sort of whitelist approach to hermeneutics rather than the current blacklist approach, but have since abandoned this idea somewhat (although many of the underlying issues I still feel strongly on)

8:44 PM

@Daи It would seem that departing too far from that really starts to cross over to what other sites like Christianity are

@PaulVargas I continued this thread of thought and attempted to incorporate it into showing work

Hey, @JackDouglas, where I can find a good resource or analysis about the doctrines of grace?

granted, I don't really have a strong idea of what BH is, but my impression is that it has been the more literal and historic/literary analysis side of things not related directly to theology

@AJHenderson that has been my argument - if you want a religious perspective, go to C.SE or MY.SE

@AJHenderson yes, but in practice that is not what we are

some of us adhere to that, but not all - and there is no mandate strictly enforcing it

not that we agree on anyways

there are some tacit guidelines

(welcome to online communities in general, let alone a semi-religiously oriented one even if the stated goal is to be as non-religious as possible)

I've noticed people have a very VERY hard time separating their religious views from their academic views unless they are used to academic study

which makes sense since their religious views are something they should rightfully be passionate about

8:47 PM

@PaulVargas I then progressed to being more ok with a plurality of converging worldviews and tried to unify more

@AJHenderson indeed

@PaulVargas what do you mean exactly by 'doctrines of grace'?

@AJHenderson you should take a look around

@JackDouglas You talked about Calvinism.

I did. Waht do you understand that to be?

@JackDouglas I know nothing. But I want to read about.

hmmm, if you know nothing how do you know you want to read about it?

you must know something

8:50 PM

@JackDouglas yeah, I just have a bad habit of collecting too many SE communities :)

@AJHenderson this one is really special

@JackDouglas Ha ha. Well, I know very little about it.

@PaulVargas are you willing to tell me what you know that you find interesting or attractive that makes you want to know more?

@JackDouglas I'm reading this book:

amazon.com/The-Doctrines-That-Divide-Christians/dp/0825431654

that looks interesting!

wow there is a whole load on predestination

have you got that far yet?

8:59 PM

If you see the contents, I'm in the third round.

"Was Mary the mother of God"?

what does he say apart from "yes"?

Nope. Calvim vs Arminius

oh, the third round of predestination

are you tired yet?

:)

@JackDouglas At all.

have you strongly held opinions on the subject?

9:02 PM

@JackDouglas It is an interesting and quick read.

@JackDouglas Before I was against. But I'm getting it.

@PaulVargas against which?

@JackDouglas Well, I had been taught against. Against Calvinism.

I've been researching a bit.

But now I think differently, I'm embracing the doctrines of grace.

How much do you read and meditate on the Bible itself?

I think it is the best resource (you originally asked for resources)

it speaks so highly of the sovereignty of God

which is (I think) the foundation of Calvinism

@JackDouglas You're right. It's the best resource.

you could do a lot worse than working you way through these: openbible.info/topics/sovereignty

I don't mean just the verses, but the surrounding context, whole chapters, even whole books around them

it's more than a life's work of course :)

9:13 PM

@JackDouglas So I should start now.

@PaulVargas :)

Romans, especially chapter 9, features heavily in that list: it is a 'blow your mind' chapter

time for bed for me: I hope that's any help in your quest

feel free to ping me tomorrow if you'd like to continue the conversation

Thanks!

9:26 PM

@JackDouglas were you in the Christianity room for my whole dialog on predestination vs free will?

or rather my talking about predestination and free will

since I don't see it as a vs

@AJHenderson What do you mean?

I maintain that both predesitination and free will exist

> In like manner, Charles Spurgeon said that free will and election are like two parallel lines that don't ever seem to touch.

in short, basically that God knowing what you will do before you do it and the fact that you will do it does not mean that it is not also your choice of your own free will

> But he said that if you follow them far enough, all the way up to Heaven, then they do meet each other. When asked how he reconciles free will and election, Spurgeon replied 'You don't have to reconcile friends!"

9:40 PM

I dig deeper into that that I (purely theorize) that our free will is in fact what makes us in the image of God

or a significant part of it anyway

but that's moving more in to theory than what I believe concretely

I concretely believe that both free will and predestination are valid and they actually resolve quite nicely together in my head

though explaining it clearly is a far trickier proposition

It is said that the unconverted have no real free will. They are slaves to sin. Their decisions are polluted by sin.

@PaulVargas I'd argue they have free will but only once choice they know how to make

fundamentally, I find the basis of free will to be to follow God's way or follow our own

It is also said that regeneration precedes faith.

our own could go in any number of directions, but practically they all go the same place

God reintroduces us to his will and thus we have a choice to believe and follow or to reject and continue our own ways

but any choice other than following God results in continued slavery to sin, which is by definition not following God

it doesn't matter which way you choose to not follow God

I, honestly, I know very little about it. So I'm looking for.

@AJHenderson This has been discussed for many centuries, from Augustine and Pelagius.

9:48 PM

yes, yes it has

@AJHenderson Do you think that man cooperates with God in his salvation?

@PaulVargas I think that God only calls us if we would choose but that if God calls us we must choose because God can't be denied

I also think it is impossible for us to find God without God calling us

so I'm not sure if I would say that we don't cooperate in the salvation, but we are dependent in every way on God for it

10:04 PM

@AJHenderson Then God calls us first. If He wills.

Does He see or saw something special in us?

Did he based on his foreknowledge, that they would choose to believe in Him?

@PaulVargas God wishes that all be saved

but he doesn't compel us to be saved

his will is that all should be saved, but his will is also that we have free will

therefore he will allow us to choose to be separate from him by not compelling us to follow him, but neither does he compel us to not follow him

@PaulVargas so I guess if there is anything special he saw in us, it is only that given the calling, we would want to follow Him, but we can only do that by Him calling

@AJHenderson Do you know any resources to explain or analyze this viewpoint (as well as your own)?

I want to know both points of view, and then choose one.

@PaulVargas we've tried to identify my viewpoint and couldn't find anyone that matches up exactly

I've arrived at it personally by looking at the passages referenced by both calvinists and people who argue against calvanism and looking for the ways in which both can be resolved logically

but my views are entirely from my own personal study

10:19 PM

@AJHenderson Where are you?

@PaulVargas Albany, NY area

but basically my method of studying the Bible is to assume everything is literal until I can find evidence that proves it inaccurate, but I also spend some time considering what it would look like if elements weren't literal as well

but I'm very slow to rule anything out as non-literal accidentally

@AJHenderson I was taught by some of the BMM

and thus I go to great lengths to determine how apparent contradictions can in fact both be true

interestingly enough, I grew up in an American Baptist church

Many of them do not follow Calvinism.

They talk about something called The divine purpose of grace.

They say that God chose different means. A family, a nation, a servant.

Those who choose the mean, will save. Those who choose the mean, are predestined to be like His Son.

They say that everyone forgets something, adoption.

10:44 PM

Adoption is the final destination of the believers, this is in the future. So, they say we are predestined to be like His Son.

Thus, no one is predestined to be saved or lost.

The medium of choice is Christ, because in Ephesians says "in Christ."

The point is to choose Christ. If we are in Christ, we are new creatures. All in accordance with free will.

---

Now I do not know if all this leaves unresolved some point.

« first day (912 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3684 days later) »

Transcript for

Apr '144

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