Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Interpretation

Expand Messages
  • G.E. McPherson
    Hello List, I ve been lurking for a while and Eric s comments have flushed me out :-) ... This is a crucial area in anyone s understanding of Christianity. If
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 1, 1999
      Hello List,

      I've been lurking for a while and Eric's comments have flushed me
      out :-)

      On 29 Sep 99, at 8:42, Eric061450@... wrote:

      > I approach the Bible as I would any other literary work. I do not believe
      > in divine inspiration. Some is factual, some is semi-factual, other parts
      > are simply myth, in my view. The same is true for other "scriptures" of
      > other religions.

      This is a crucial area in anyone's understanding of Christianity. If
      we accept, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is not divinely
      inspired and that "some is factual, some is semi-factual [whatever
      that means], and other parts are simply myth [I take it that
      myth=fiction here]", you are still faced with the task of determining
      which parts are which. You can be wrong in some areas with no
      eternal consequences, but misjudging in others will lead you to a
      very bleak eternity.

      So, my question for you, Eric, is this: which parts of the Bible fall
      into the categories you mention? We could narrow it down to
      classifying the Old Testament prophetic writings, the gospels, and
      the Pauline letters. How would you categorize these, and why?

      Regards,
      Gerry
    • Eric061450@xxx.xxx
      In a message dated 10/1/99 9:16:16 AM Central Daylight Time, emerald@mc.net ... The Prophetic writings were written at times when people needed to be reminded
      Message 2 of 8 , Oct 2, 1999
        In a message dated 10/1/99 9:16:16 AM Central Daylight Time, emerald@...
        writes:

        > which parts of the Bible fall
        > into the categories you mention? We could narrow it down to
        > classifying the Old Testament prophetic writings, the gospels, and
        > the Pauline letters. How would you categorize these, and why?
        >
        The Prophetic writings were written at times when people needed to be
        reminded of their religion, either because they were neglecting to abide by
        it(as in the case of Amos), or wwere in times of trouble, such as
        theBabylonian captivity. Isiah, for example. I see the primary function of a
        propheet as being the "conscience of the community",reminding people of what
        they needed to know. I do not see the primary function as "prredicting the
        futture. If they do make predictions, it is a secondary role--a warning or a
        promise.
        The Gospels, in my opinion were not intended as biographies, but as witnesses
        to the faith of the Christian community, in order to pass on, from generation
        to generation, the story ofJesus, so that it would not be forgotten, or
        twisted by others in the future.Paul and the others were written in order to
        establish the faith securely, to prevent errors of doctrine from creeping in,
        and to encourage Christians tocontinue to abide by the true Christian faith,
        and not be discouraged in times of trouble.
        I would add that these writings continue to serve the same function today as
        they did at the time they were written.
        --eric

        "Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by that which you have
        not done than by that which you have, so... explore, dream, discover!"
        -- Mark Twain
      • Symmetor@aol.com
        The inquisition where people were tortured and burned for not being catholic,(The atronomer whose name I forget at the moment)who proved that the Sun does not
        Message 3 of 8 , Oct 10, 2001
          The
          inquisition where people were tortured and burned for not being
          catholic,(The atronomer whose name I forget at the moment)who proved
          that the Sun does not revolve arond the earth was tried and convicted
          of heresy, are but two incidents of what happenes when one takes the
          word of men over the written word of God.A verse come to mind here;
          Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
          As such, men can not be counted upon to "interpret" and institute
          laws and rules that are not specifically written in scripture, but
          this is what the Catholic chuch has done and continues to do.


          Without meaning to justify any particular church, I must come to the defense of those churches and individuals who realize that interpretation is of the essence of the adaptation and reapplication of scripture, since there is not a piece of direct instruction to be found anywhere in it. It was entirely written by ancients directly to other ancients in its uninterpreted form. The apostles were the first exemplars of true interpretation, after the Lord Himself, of course; Paul puts the true nature of scripture on display when he interprets a law that, for instance, to a city-dweller even of his own time might never have had any pertinence: "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." - Sym
        • KRINKS@PFNMAIL.NET
          It is telling that you clipped and didn t reply to the exact quote that refutes your position, that discusses interpretation . If something you believe
          Message 4 of 8 , Oct 10, 2001
            It is telling that you clipped and didn't reply to the exact quote
            that refutes your position, that discusses "interpretation". If
            something you believe over-rides scripture, then you must check to
            see where your faith lies, for it camn't be in the Bible which is
            plainly understood and not open to interpretation, lest we "get it
            wrong" which apparently you've no problem with.
            Mark Penn



            --- In apologetics@y..., Symmetor@a... wrote:
            > The
            > inquisition where people were tortured and burned for not being
            > catholic,(The atronomer whose name I forget at the moment)who
            proved
            > that the Sun does not revolve arond the earth was tried and
            convicted
            > of heresy, are but two incidents of what happenes when one takes
            the
            > word of men over the written word of God.A verse come to mind here;
            > Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not
            one."
            > As such, men can not be counted upon to "interpret" and institute
            > laws and rules that are not specifically written in scripture, but
            > this is what the Catholic chuch has done and continues to do.
            >
            >
            > Without meaning to justify any particular church, I must come
            to the defense of those churches and individuals who realize that
            interpretation is of the essence of the adaptation and reapplication
            of scripture, since there is not a piece of direct instruction to be
            found anywhere in it. It was entirely written by ancients directly to
            other ancients in its uninterpreted form. The apostles were the first
            exemplars of true interpretation, after the Lord Himself, of course;
            Paul puts the true nature of scripture on display when he interprets
            a law that, for instance, to a city-dweller even of his own time
            might never have had any pertinence: "You shall not muzzle an ox when
            it is treading out the grain." - Sym
          • Symmetor@aol.com
            It is telling that you clipped and didn t reply to the exact quote that refutes your position, that discusses interpretation . If something you believe
            Message 5 of 8 , Oct 14, 2001
              It is telling that you clipped and didn't reply to the exact quote
              that refutes your position, that discusses "interpretation". If
              something you believe over-rides scripture, then you must check to
              see where your faith lies, for it camn't be in the Bible which is
              plainly understood and not open to interpretation, lest we "get it
              wrong" which apparently you've no problem with.
              Mark Penn

              So Peter must have been indicted for having 'over-ridden scripture',
              having a faith 'not in the law', which was 'plainly understood and not open
              to interpretation'. You miss the implication of New Testament scripture. -
              Sym
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.