Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
31 online now:
Captcass, dwise1, GDR, jar, RAZD, Tanypteryx (6 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,614 Year: 16,650/19,786 Month: 775/2,598 Week: 21/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tentativity and The Bible
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 13 of 48 (674191)
09-27-2012 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DWIII
01-16-2012 8:57 AM


I would just like to point out one thing here. “Implied missing bits”. Have you ever heard of low-context culture, high-context culture? (No, I’ve not been on this forum long, but the format is wreaking havoc on my eyes. This is no insult. I have read through many of the posts, but I don’t find anything of interest, yet)

(This is related, but not exactly on the topic, High-versus low-Context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and American cultures talking about current cultures of which I am describing)

Israel was a high-context culture. These “implied missing bits” are actually assumed to be common knowledge to the reader.

This article explains the issue, from a Christian’s point of view http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html

On a side note, I am a creationist.

Edited by LimpSpider, : On second thoughts, it looks like I just prefaced the thing. I will write up a more detailed reason.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : First link (very long) had problems. Also tweaked other formatting a bit (more blank lines).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DWIII, posted 01-16-2012 8:57 AM DWIII has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 11:50 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 6:08 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 14 of 48 (674194)
09-27-2012 1:42 AM


Sorry for the delay.

High-context: A culture where information is widely shared. It’s when the group is of greater importance than the individual. Information is common to all. For a modern day example, think about those born in the 80-90’s in the UK area. Most would have heard of “Mr. Bean.” Those familiar with it, as in part of the group, would understand any imitation of Atkinson’s humour.

Or maybe another different type of example. The phrase “Skeleton in the closet”. One does not need to cite a literary expert for the person one is speaking to to understand.

Low-context: The non-fiction books we see around us now are all low-context. They all have many references, which, by the way, many people do not follow up on. The author has to reference his/her views because otherwise few people would understand him. (Or have to take his word for it)

If there is anything I haven’t explained or is not clear, please bring it up.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Blank lines between paragraphs.


  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 17 of 48 (674307)
09-27-2012 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by ringo
09-27-2012 11:50 AM


quote:
And the intended reader was Israel, not you. That's exactly why the Bible should not be taken literally. It should be taken in the context in which it was meant.
If you understand that, why are you a creationist?

Yes, the intended reader was Israel. So, if we read it like the Israelites, we would understand the text in the same way as the Israelites. Therefore, given this, add our more substantial knowledge, and we can definitely see if it’s the Truth or not. After all, I think that Science is merely one way of looking for the truth, or in some cases, it’s called knowledge.

Why creationists here worn out so fast? Because there are so many of you and so few of us. Each of you post a reply to something we say. We have to post a reply to all that you say. Otherwise, it’s aha. You don’t have an argument. Get me? It’s not the debate. It’s the volume of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 11:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 12:16 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 18 of 48 (674318)
09-27-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 6:08 PM


Dr., Re: first point. The Jes did understand the Scriptures. Jesus was not against the Scriptures. He was against the additional laws that the Pharisees imposed on the people, all of which were excessive. The “experts” in this case were jealous of Him, He was much the more popular. Common crowds can be stirred up quite easily. I’ve seen it done before.

quote:
And yet the readers of the OT, using their "common knowledge" cried: "Crucify him! Crucify him!" The "implied missing bits" were not such "common knowledge" as to prevent them from sadistically murdering God incarnate. But you think that their consensus --- their "common knowledge" --- is sufficient for us to agree on less important stuff than whether it is OK to torture God to death?
To be a Christian, you have to believe that the most important fact in the world ever was concealed and hidden in the OT from the Jews: from their experts, from their religious enthusiasts, and from the common people. So let's hear no more about this "high context culture".

You make mistakes here. I’ve already shown why they wanted him crucified. It was not use of their common knowledge, it was use of their shared jealousy. So this “high-context culture”, supported by the historical community, as I’ve shown, stands.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 6:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:10 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 20 of 48 (674332)
09-27-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 8:10 PM


Nope, I did not say they KNEW it was so. They wanted Him crucified because they were jealous, not because he was the Messiah. You see, He hadn’t yet fulfilled the prophecies, which is another topic altogether.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:10 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:56 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 22 of 48 (674340)
09-27-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 8:56 PM


How is that? I think that's a good question. You see, at the point where Jesus came to Earth, there had not been a prophet for around 400 years. Thus the appearance of Jesus was something they were not expecting. It was not, however, common knowledge that the Messiah would be Jesus. He did not absolutely say He was the Son of God until the High Priests interrogated him. Even then they had no reason to believe that He was indeed the Messiah, since it is not stated in the Scriptures.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 24 of 48 (674454)
09-29-2012 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
09-28-2012 12:16 PM


quote:
The ones most likely to read it like Israelites are modern Jews, who can read the Hebrew. So why is it that fundamentalist CHristians often disagree with the Jewish view of the Old Testament?

How exactly do fundamentalist Christians disagree? I seriously do not know

quote:
Then bring reinforcements. If evolution is dying as creationists claim, you should have an endless supply of adherents to inundate us.

I hardly make such a claim. In fact, the evidence points to the contrary. I also do not know of many other creationists.

quote:
You don't have to respond to everybody. It's to your advantage to have several versions of an argument to choose from. Respond to the one(s) thatyou have the best answers for.

That’s the problem. I have answers to all of them...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 12:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 09-29-2012 12:54 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 26 of 48 (674502)
09-29-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by ringo
09-29-2012 12:54 PM


I don't read the Bible like that. Literal would be too restrictive. Rather, I use a literal-historical-grammatical-contextual reading
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by ringo, posted 09-29-2012 12:54 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2012 6:53 PM LimpSpider has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 2434 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 28 of 48 (674701)
10-01-2012 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Theodoric
09-30-2012 6:53 PM


I have already explained myself, Theodoric. You are simply twisting words

{Note: Message 29 was spam and was deleted. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2012 6:53 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019