Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where does literalism end and interpretation begin?
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 43 of 96 (293258)
03-08-2006 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 10:51 AM


Re: Problems with the OP
robin writes:
Maybe they meant it quite literally
You're not understanding me, your responses are exactly the reason I write this thread...
Maybe they meant it literally, maybe they did not. You choose to put whetever meaning you feel fits onto that word. that is your choice.
but it is a choice you make. and it is a choice that will affect the meaning of the word.
So maybe you can clear it up then?
Does a Biblical literalist read the bible 'literally' as per the meanings of the words in todays world?
Or does He/She read the bible 'literally' as per the meanings of the words at the time of writing?
(I would have though correct translation/transcription should have taken care of that dilemma)
Is it somewhere in between? where do you decide which meaning fits? and on what basis do you make this decision

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 10:51 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 11:11 AM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 49 of 96 (293273)
03-08-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
03-08-2006 11:31 AM


faith writes:
NT tells us that those laws no longer apply to us.
Where does it say this?
faith writes:
I don't understand how my remarks about the early chapters of Genesis and the book of Jonah being dismissed as literal got you to the question about the meaning of "heart"
they didnt, it was in my opening post.
This message has been edited by Creavolution, 03-08-2006 11:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 11:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:04 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 50 of 96 (293277)
03-08-2006 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 11:11 AM


Re: Problems with the OP
robin writes:
In the case of "heart," you decide what best fits the context
'You' decide.... in the case of 'Heart' we can probobly agree to the intended meaning. but it is not so clear cut in other areas.
Who decides then? who is right?
robin writes:
We can as well call it literal
Literal with repect to modern understanding of the word or literal with respect to ancient understnding of the word?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 11:11 AM robinrohan has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 52 of 96 (293303)
03-08-2006 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Faith
03-08-2006 1:04 PM


faith writes:
it says it in all Paul's discussions of freedom from the Law; it says it wherever it discusses Old Testament "types" of the Messiah; it says it in Jesus' affirmation that He came to fulfill the Law, in the overall context.
So Paul has authority to override God in respect to the Law?
Could you point me towards passages/verses? I am genuinely interested to read where levitical laws are rendered obsolete.
Does this mean that levitican teaching with regard to homosexuality is also overidden?
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Lev 18:22
faith writes:
Well, you put it in your post to me where one would normally expect an answer to those remarks to be.
I was simply continuing the thread on topic wrt the opening post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 1:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 2:09 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 55 of 96 (293359)
03-08-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 2:33 PM


Re: Problems with the OP
Ok... I concede my choice of words could possibly have been better...
But semantics aside, do you at least get the point of the question? Do you understand what it is I am trying to find out here?
Where is the cutoff point at which the word begins to lose it's original meaning, (if such a thing can be known), and begins to reflect more, the personality of the reader/interpreter?
robin writes:
All reading is interpretation
So, You are saying a biblical literalist must interpret what is written in the bible? to what extent?
what sets an allegorical tale apart from a supposed truth?
there are certainly different people who interpret the bible differently, and have differing views on what is metaphor and what is truth.
Simply saying "once upon a time" does not necessarily mark a story as a fable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 2:33 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 5:03 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 56 of 96 (293360)
03-08-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 2:33 PM


Re: Problems with the OP
robin writes:
If we turn to the highway code, we will find that we have to interpret the explanations
How do you interpret a 'stop' sign?
I believe the highway code is very clear on how to behave on the road. so as to avoid precisely the mis-interpretation we see with the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 2:33 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 57 of 96 (293362)
03-08-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
03-08-2006 2:09 PM


faith writes:
the ten commandments which include condemnation of sexual sin including homosexual sin
I'm not aware the ten commandments have anything to say about homosexuality

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 2:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 03-08-2006 4:44 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:16 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 62 of 96 (293413)
03-08-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by robinrohan
03-08-2006 5:03 PM


Re: Problems with the OP
robin writes:
What interpretation involves is a judgement about the meaning based on certain assumptions and whatever evidence there is.
Agreed.
so.. by your own definition, Everyone who reads the bible makes a judgement about the meaning based upon certain assumptions and whatever evidence there is.
In my eyes that leave it wide open to misinterpretation.
That leaves a big question mark over the truth of the word.
So... two biblical literalists could concievable have differing views as to the teaching and meaning of the bible?
robin writes:
"once upon a time" suggests an unidentified time and place.
I would suggest that "in the beginning" remains rather undefined.
the beginning of what? the beginning of God? the beginning of time?
does this then suggest that this is a fable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by robinrohan, posted 03-08-2006 5:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by robinrohan, posted 03-12-2006 11:18 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 64 of 96 (293429)
03-08-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:16 PM


faith writes:
Thou shalt not commit adultery includes all kinds of sexual sin
Firstly... this is exactly the type of Interpretation i had in mind when I opened this thread. what, exactly, tells you that this commandment refers to all sexual sin?
Secondly By your logic if a gay married couple were to engage in sex it would be ok? (or is there a separate commandment forbidding gay marriage?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:16 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:22 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 67 by Asgara, posted 03-08-2006 6:28 PM Heathen has not replied
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:35 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 70 of 96 (293447)
03-08-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:35 PM


faith writes:
Marriage is between a man and a woman, according to Jesus and according to Genesis.
can you please back this up with a quote?
faith writes:
If marrying a divorced person is adultery, as Jesus said, then certainly two gays marrying is adultery.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 PM Heathen has replied
 Message 75 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 8:50 PM Heathen has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 74 of 96 (293460)
03-08-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
03-08-2006 6:53 PM


faith writes:
If you don't know the Bible well enough to know what Jesus said about adultery your question about where to draw the line on interpretation just requires way too much of your discussants.
I'm simply asking you to back up your assertions with relevant quotes.
seems fair to me.
If you can't back up the point you are trying to make you should ask yourself on what basis you believe it to be true.
I won't ask any more of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 03-08-2006 6:53 PM Faith has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 78 of 96 (293702)
03-09-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ramoss
03-08-2006 8:50 PM


ramoss writes:
the comment about man being given a wife made out of his side (the hebew could mean either side or rib), does indicate that a man and wife is the ideal.
But doesn't specifically state that Man-Man or Woman-Woman is wrong?
So does something become evil simply because it is not specifically mentioned as Ideal in the bible?
I would have thought it would have been specifically pointed out as in levitican law (which we have learned in message 46 and message 49 was overuled by Paul(and Jesus?))
ramoss writes:
I personally prefer the translation of 'SIDE' instead of 'RIB', because it indicates an equality (side by side) in a marriage, rather than a woman being in a subserviant role.
But other bible passages cleary state that a woman should be subservient.
Another case where "interpretation" can change the meaning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ramoss, posted 03-08-2006 8:50 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024