What I believe~~~
Uniacke
>What I meant was that if you can accept thehistorical accuracy of the
>resurrection account, then the rest of the historical narratives in the
>Bible are a piece of cake.
Would be a piece a cake? Not so sure.
Is there history hidden in the OT narratives? I think so.
Is there history in a narrative such as that of Judah and Tamar, Genesis
chapter 38?
Let's see. There are names in the narrative.
When I look for names and wish to find what those names represent, I use the
Bible Hebrew Names Version and search because I know nothing about the
hebrew language.
I believe that in general the names of biblical figures mentioned in the OT
except some foreigners are not those of historical persons but rather
identify people, localities, my reason for saying that the Heads of tribes
never existed.
Ge 46:12 -
The sons of Yehudah: `Er, Onan, Shelach, Peretz, and Zerach; but `Er and
Onan died in the land of Kana`an. The sons of Peretz were Hetzron and Hamul.
No problem with Phares, we have a pretty good idea who he represents. He
obviously represents Judea or a part of Judea, a chip of the block, and if
you trace the name Hezron, you will likely end up in Hebron.
How about Zerah? Well since Isau represented the southern part of Palestine,
Jacob represented the northern part, roughly. You could even trace the
breach to Jerusalem. Millo is the filling of a breach and who built the
Millo? Is the OT a Millo? In a sense it is. It could be both, a breach and a
millo.
If Phares represents a part of Judea, Zerah aught to represent a part of
Edom. You can trace Zerah to Edom if you search the names related to Zerah
and likely find that it is related to royalty. The scarlet thread is not
there for nothing.
Abraham and Lot devided greater Palestine into two, then there were
subdivisions in Ismael and Isaac, subdivisions in Jacob and Isau, localities
becoming smaller and smaller, yet overlapping on one another other up to
Judah.
Now we can ignore Er and Onan but who does Shelah represents. We are given a
clue who, which locality he represents, his mother was a Canaanite or a
Phoenician, whatever.
By searching the OT we can find who Shejah represents. Where is history in
all that. Well, there is a name in Ge 38 which is important since Judah
relates to Judaism.That name is Hirah. Hirah, Hiras, Hiram, same thing to me
but Hirah rings a bell. Hiram is said to have built Solomon's Temple and he
was Phoenician, Canaanite.
There is history in Genesis chapter 38 but it would take a biblical expert
to interpret the narrative to understand the history that is hidden in the
text. It is obvious that the story relates to the Temple, to Judaism.
Ge 38:26 -
Yehudah acknowledged them, and said, "She is more righteous than I, because
I didn't give her to Shelach, my son." He knew her again no more.
Obviously he did not give Tamar to Shelah for otherwise Shelah would have
been a Jew. The Babylonians saw that he would not, they destroyed Tyre and
deported the Canaanites.
>Tom
Tom Albrecht
> >What I meant was that if you can accept thehistorical accuracy of the
> >resurrection account, then the rest of the historical narratives in the
> >Bible are a piece of cake.
>
> Would be a piece a cake? Not so sure.
I am.
> Is there history hidden in the OT narratives? I think so.
Hidden?? That's an odd way of putting it, unless you have some
intellectual axe to grind.
I believe that the stories found in Scripture provide a historically
accurate portrayal of the events. It is not a complete history. Perhaps
that is part of your confusion.
Tom
Uniacke
"Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
news:KhEa7.2631$5d4.6...@monger.newsread.com...
> "Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote
> > >What I meant was that if you can accept thehistorical accuracy of the
> > >resurrection account, then the rest of the historical narratives in the
> > >Bible are a piece of cake.
> >
> > Would be a piece a cake? Not so sure.
>
> I am.
>
If you did accept the historical accuracy of the resurrection account.
Question is can we expect an honest answer to that if?
Tom Albrecht
> > > >What I meant was that if you can accept thehistorical accuracy of the
> > > >resurrection account, then the rest of the historical narratives in
the
> > > >Bible are a piece of cake.
> > >
> > > Would be a piece a cake? Not so sure.
> >
> > I am.
> >
>
> If you did accept the historical accuracy of the resurrection account.
>
> Question is can we expect an honest answer to that if?
Huh?? I do accept the historical accuracy of the resurrection accounts,
along with the accuracy of all the other biblical narratives in keeping with
the grammatical-historical approach to interpreting Scripture.
Tom
Uniacke
What is your definition of grammatical interpretation?
I thought it meant a historical-critical method which assumes that words and
expressions have a relatively stable meaning during given periods of
history.
As to your historical approach, it's the convinction that the narrative
accounts are historical. That's no approach, it's a denial of science of
human intelligence.
>
> Tom
>
>
Ethan North
<Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote:
>
>"Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
>news:elGa7.791$5d.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>> "Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote
>> > > > >What I meant was that if you can accept thehistorical accuracy of
>the
>> > > > >resurrection account, then the rest of the historical narratives in
>> the
>> > > > >Bible are a piece of cake.
>> > > >
>> > > > Would be a piece a cake? Not so sure.
>> > >
>> > > I am.
>> > >
>> >
>> > If you did accept the historical accuracy of the resurrection account.
>> >
>> > Question is can we expect an honest answer to that if?
>>
>> Huh?? I do accept the historical accuracy of the resurrection accounts,
>> along with the accuracy of all the other biblical narratives in keeping
>with
>> the grammatical-historical approach to interpreting Scripture.
>
>What is your definition of grammatical interpretation?
>
>I thought it meant a historical-critical method which assumes that words and
>expressions have a relatively stable meaning during given periods of
>history.
The grammatical-historical hermeneutic takes the words of the extant
Old and New Testament documents in their normal usage as when written,
according to the rules of grammar and context; the hermeneutic takes
into account the historical contextual usage and definition of the
words and their relationship to each other.
To introduce yourself to sound hermeneutic and exegetical
methodologies, the following may be of some help:
Robert H. Stein, *A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible* (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1994).
Adler Mortimer, *How to Read a Book* (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1940). [A classic.]. Don't let the title put you off as insulting; it
really is a rich, wonderful exposition on true exegetical reading.
Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, *An Introduction to Biblical
Hermeneutics* (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
Henry Vickler, *Hermeneutics: Principles and Process of Biblical
Interpretation* (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981).
>
>As to your historical approach, it's the convinction that the narrative
>accounts are historical. That's no approach, it's a denial of science of
>human intelligence.
The balanced consensus of archaeological research fully supports the
historical outlines of the extant New Testament, and hence
substantiate reading the historical narratives *as* historical
narratives [See Rainer Riesner, "Archaeology and Geography," in
Green, McKnight and Marshall, *Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels*,
33-46; see also E.M. Blaiklock, *The Archaeology of the New Testament*
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984).
British New Testament critical scholar R.T. France commented:
"At the level of their literary and historical character we have good
reasons to treat the gospels seriously as a source of information on
the life and teaching of Jesus, and thus on the historical origins of
Christianity...Beyond that point, the decision as to how far a scholar
is willing to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced
more by his openness to a "supernaturalist" world-view than by
strictly historical considerations" (R.T. France, "The Gospels as
Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity," *Truth* 1
(1985): 86.
The following may be of some help:
Paul Barnett, *Is the New Testament History?* (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1986).
Craig Blomberg, *The Historical Reliability of the Gospels* (Downers
Grove: InterVarsity, 1987).
William Lane Craig, *The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of
Jesus* (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellin, 1985).
Richard Burridge, *What are the Gospels? A Comparison with
Graeco-Roman Biography* (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
I. Howard Marshall, *Luke: Historian and Theologian* (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1989).
And yet I fully realize--and I suspect that as a presuppositionalist
Tom would concur--that the facts are not the issue with "Uniacke,"
though his lack of familiarity with the facts are certainly an
obstacle for him. But as the late eminent Church historian and Yale
scholar Philip Schaff aptly observed:
"Infidels are seldom convinced by argument; for the springs of
unbelief are in the heart rather than in the head" (Philip Schaff,
*The Person of Christ*, p. 6).
Uniacke
"Ethan North" <ethannor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b6b4e49....@news.matnet.com...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 20:32:45 -0400, "Uniacke"
> <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
> >news:elGa7.791$5d.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> >> "Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote
> >> > > > >What I meant was that if you can accept thehistorical accuracy
of
> >the
> >> > > > >resurrection account, then the rest of the historical narratives
in
> >> the
> >> > > > >Bible are a piece of cake.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Would be a piece a cake? Not so sure.
> >> > >
> >> > > I am.
> >> > >
> >
> >accounts are historical. That's no approach, it's a denial of science of
> >human intelligence.
>
>
> The balanced consensus of archaeological research fully supports the
> historical outlines of the extant New Testament, and hence
> substantiate reading the historical narratives *as* historical
> narratives [See Rainer Riesner, "Archaeology and Geography," in
> Green, McKnight and Marshall, *Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels*,
> 33-46; see also E.M. Blaiklock, *The Archaeology of the New Testament*
> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984).
>
One cannot pretend that the New Testament narratives prove the historicity
of the events in the Old Testament narratives.
>
> British New Testament critical scholar R.T. France commented:
>
> "At the level of their literary and historical character we have good
> reasons to treat the gospels seriously as a source of information on
> the life and teaching of Jesus, and thus on the historical origins of
> Christianity...Beyond that point, the decision as to how far a scholar
> is willing to accept the record they offer is likely to be influenced
> more by his openness to a "supernaturalist" world-view than by
> strictly historical considerations" (R.T. France, "The Gospels as
> Historical Sources for Jesus, the Founder of Christianity," *Truth* 1
> (1985): 86.
>
historicity of the events described in the narratives of the Old Testament
can only be a pious wish.
>
>
> And yet I fully realize--and I suspect that as a presuppositionalist
> Tom would concur--that the facts are not the issue with "Uniacke,"
> though his lack of familiarity with the facts are certainly an
> obstacle for him. But as the late eminent Church historian and Yale
> scholar Philip Schaff aptly observed:
Except that you missed the boat. The sub-thread of the subject debate by Tom
is that if you can "ACCEPT" the historical accuracy of the resurrection
account, you can "ACCEPT" the historicity of all the other biblical
narratives. LOL.
To "Accept" and believe that an event described in a biblical narrative is
historical is not a proof that the event described in the narrative happened
as written.
There is such thing called faith and the belief that the events described in
the biblical narratives are historical is to have faith in the narratives
and what they represent.
A biblical narrative in which a historical event has been paraphrased can be
said historical but the paraphrased history in the narrative is not history.
It could be that Tom is playing with words.
The acceptance of the historical accuracy of a the resurrection narratives
does not prove the historicity of all biblical narratives. Faith is not
history.
The likely existence of Balaam the seer does not prove the existence of
Abraham or the historicity of events described in the Balaam narrative.
>
> "Infidels are seldom convinced by argument; for the springs of
> unbelief are in the heart rather than in the head" (Philip Schaff,
> *The Person of Christ*, p. 6).
I don't see what that has to do with the historicity, the authenticity of
the biblical narratives. I read those silly remarks and it always amazes me
how ridiculous those who write them are.
Uniacke
possibility of a finding by archeologists of Jesus' remains.
Some of us were born Christians, some became Christians after having heard
the biblical message preached, others after having read the New Testament
message.
But there comes a day in the life for a Christian when faith is no longer
based on biblical narratives it becomes innate.
How would I react if such archeological find was made?
Most would say 'I've been had'.
I know that I would still believe in the Resurrection, still believe that
Christ exists and still believe in an afterlife.
Why? Because my faith is no longer based on narratives. It used to be. My
faith in Christ is not the Bible, therefore it must be innate.
In no way does it mean that I'm a true Christian, I'm not.
Tom Albrecht
"Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message
news:qrRa7.68964$Q13.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> In a previous post, I had put forward as a hypothesis for reasoning the
> possibility of a finding by archeologists of Jesus' remains.
>
> Some of us were born Christians, some became Christians after having heard
> the biblical message preached, others after having read the New Testament
> message.
>
> But there comes a day in the life for a Christian when faith is no longer
> based on biblical narratives it becomes innate.
"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." It
is the Word of God that operates in us by the power of the Holy Spirit to
bring us to faith.
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Of
course the Word of God includes the objective truth of the Biblical
narratives.
I do not worry about such hypotheticals as finding the bones of Jesus. It
is only important to those interested in the futility of disproving the Word
of God.
Tom
Uniacke
>
> "Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message
> news:qrRa7.68964$Q13.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > In a previous post, I had put forward as a hypothesis for reasoning the
> > possibility of a finding by archeologists of Jesus' remains.
> >
> > Some of us were born Christians, some became Christians after having
heard
> > the biblical message preached, others after having read the New
Testament
> > message.
> >
> > But there comes a day in the life for a Christian when faith is no
longer
> > based on biblical narratives it becomes innate.
>
> "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."
It
> is the Word of God that operates in us by the power of the Holy Spirit to
> bring us to faith.
>
> "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Of
> course the Word of God includes the objective truth of the Biblical
> narratives.
Now you are adjusting your fiddle a bit. Objective truth in the Biblical
narratives is not necessary the historical truth of the account of events as
described therein.
>
> I do not worry about such hypotheticals as finding the bones of Jesus. It
> is only important to those interested in the futility of disproving the
Word
> of God.
I don't either and did not expect a person such as you to be worried about a
hypothetical question. Not all Christians are objective when they read the
Biblical narratives. For many the Bible is a history book. It is not a
history book. Parables, allegories, paraphrased historical events,
paraphrased legends and Myths cannot be history but if read objectively,
Biblical narratives in which such exist are useful.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and
to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and
teaches us to do what is right."
Providing the meaning of the Scriptures is not twisted on purpose or for a
purpose.
Maybe not in certain circumstances, a little twisting can come handy. Paul
was quite an expert on Biblical narratives in his dealings with Jews and
Judeo-Christians. I don't know if he could dance the twist but I have
admiration for him. He knew his Tanach. LOL.
>
> Tom
>
>
Tom Albrecht
> > > In a previous post, I had put forward as a hypothesis for reasoning
the
> > > possibility of a finding by archeologists of Jesus' remains.
> > >
> > > Some of us were born Christians, some became Christians after having
> heard
> > > the biblical message preached, others after having read the New
> Testament
> > > message.
> > >
> > > But there comes a day in the life for a Christian when faith is no
> longer
> > > based on biblical narratives it becomes innate.
> >
> > "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."
> It
> > is the Word of God that operates in us by the power of the Holy Spirit
to
> > bring us to faith.
> >
> > "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Of
> > course the Word of God includes the objective truth of the Biblical
> > narratives.
>
> Now you are adjusting your fiddle a bit. Objective truth in the Biblical
> narratives is not necessary the historical truth of the account of events
as
> described therein.
I don't generally play semantic games. The historical truth of the accounts
in the Bible is objective truth. God chose to convey truth to us through
the Bible. The information found in the Bible is theologically,
historically, and scientifically accurate.
Science, history, archeology, etc are not at odds with what is found in
Scripture. That is different from the fact that some scientists,
historians, archeologists, etc -- even some theologians -- are at odds with
the Scriptures. That is because they are at war with the God of Scripture.
"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they
that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life
and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the
law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
Even a PhD with a carnal mind cannot ultimately know truth.
You are correct, the Bible is not a history book. However, all the
information recorded in the Bible is historically accurate.
Tom
Uniacke
I agree. But you are playing a game of words."The information found in the
Bible is theologically,
historically, and scientifically accurate", but the accounts as written in
the narratives need not be historically accurate and the elements pertaining
to science need not be scientifically accurate. The narratives being
accessories to the theology, it is obvious that the information found in the
Bible can be said to be theologically accurate.
Michel Breal, 1883, invented the word 'Semantique'. He would tell you that
you do play a semantic game here.
>
> Science, history, archeology, etc are not at odds with what is found in
> Scripture. That is different from the fact that some scientists,
> historians, archeologists, etc -- even some theologians -- are at odds
with
> the Scriptures. That is because they are at war with the God of
Scripture.
Many are not at odds with the Scripture but are at odds with those who
pretend that the religious figures in the OT and most events described
therein historically took place. I'm not at odds with Scripture but I don't
consider the Bible a history book.
> "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but
they
> that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
> For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life
> and peace.
> Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to
the
> law of God, neither indeed can be.
> So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
>
> Even a PhD with a carnal mind cannot ultimately know truth.
>
No need for red herrings.
> You are correct, the Bible is not a history book. However, all the
> information recorded in the Bible is historically accurate.
Right. I can only agree. Good semantic. LOL.
>
> Tom
>
>
Tom Albrecht
> > > Now you are adjusting your fiddle a bit. Objective truth in the
Biblical
> > > narratives is not necessary the historical truth of the account of
> events
> > as
> > > described therein.
> >
> > I don't generally play semantic games. The historical truth of the
> accounts
> > in the Bible is objective truth. God chose to convey truth to us
through
> > the Bible. The information found in the Bible is theologically,
> > historically, and scientifically accurate.
>
> I agree. But you are playing a game of words."The information found in the
> Bible is theologically,
> historically, and scientifically accurate", but the accounts as written in
> the narratives need not be historically accurate and the elements
pertaining
> to science need not be scientifically accurate. The narratives being
> accessories to the theology, it is obvious that the information found in
the
> Bible can be said to be theologically accurate.
> Michel Breal, 1883, invented the word 'Semantique'. He would tell you that
> you do play a semantic game here.
I unequivocally believe accounts as written in the narratives are
historically, scientifically, etc accurate.
How can something be scientifically accurate and not be scientifically
accurate at the same time? I'm afraid you are the one playing semantic
games.
"The great dividing line between Modernism and biblical Christianity is over
the foundational issue of biblical inerrancy and ultimate authority. The
historic orthodox Christian position has always been that God speaks to His
people through the Bible, which is inspired by God and thus is infallible
(or inerrant) from cover to cover. All Scripture is of divine origination;
therefore, it is God's Word. "Every single word of the Bible is, by its own
witness to itself, infallibly true [cf. Mt. 5:18; Is. 45:19; Ps. 119:160;
Ps. 119:160; Jn. 17:17].. [Thus,] the Bible is 'absolutely errorless' in any
of the subjects it touches on in teaching-whether statements about history,
natural history, ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science,
physical or historical fact, psychological or philosophical principle, or
spiritual doctrine and duty."2 Because the Bible is God's special
self-revelation of Himself to man and is infallible (i.e., objective truth)
it is the ultimate and final source of authority in all matters of worship,
doctrine and discipline.
"The foundation of Christian Liberalism is not the Bible but mankind or more
specifically the modernist scholar, church leader or bureaucrat. The great
presupposition of Modernism is a fallible Bible. Since Christian Liberalism
encompasses a fairly wide range of heretical viewpoints regarding Scripture,
what follows are the general, typical teachings of modernist scholars
regarding the Bible. Modernists argue (in accordance with their
anti-supernatural presuppositions) that the Bible is a human record of the
religious evolution of middle eastern tribes from polytheism to monotheism.
These tribes eventually become known as the Israelites. According to
Christian Liberal scholars the Bible is full of myths and legends. Thus, the
Bible does not tell us God's word but rather reveals the religious teachings
of an ancient religious community. Common slogans among Modernists are: 1.)
The Bible is not truth itself but contains truth. 2.) The Bible is not a
textbook regarding science. Therefore, one should not expect it to
accurately reflect what really occurred during creation, etc. 3.) The
Pentateuch, the Gospels, and other historical books were never intended to
be taken as literal historical accounts. 4.) The Bible is full of
contradictions. 5.) The Bible reproduces the scientific errors, ethical
views, and social prejudices of the time period in which it was written.
Therefore, many of the Old Testament laws are unethical, unjust and
barbaric. 6.) The miracles recorded in the Bible should not be regarded as
true for they violate the laws of nature. One could go on, but the points
enumerated above are sufficient for a person to understand the Modernist."
From "Modernism and Biblical Inerrancy" by Brian M. Schwertley
Modernism is error.
Tom
Libertarius
===>He knew nothing of the sort. His writings show some familiarity
with the Septuagint, but he deliberately misinterprets everything, since
his readers did not understand and did not even have access to
the OT literature. (E.g. the story of Adam, the story of Abraham
and his sons, the story of Moses, etc.)
Libertarius
===========
Uniacke
> "Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote
> > > I don't generally play semantic games. The historical truth of the
> > accounts
> > > in the Bible is objective truth. God chose to convey truth to us
> through
> > > the Bible. The information found in the Bible is theologically,
> > > historically, and scientifically accurate.
>
> historically, scientifically, etc accurate.
>
> How can something be scientifically accurate and not be scientifically
> accurate at the same time? I'm afraid you are the one playing semantic
> games.
Not at all. A literalist may well consider a happening in a biblical
narrative scientifically accurate and a non-literalist as not being
scientifically accurate. You never know what to expect from a literalist.
Lol.
>
> "The great dividing line between Modernism and biblical Christianity is
over
> the foundational issue of biblical inerrancy and ultimate authority. The
> historic orthodox Christian position has always been that God speaks to
His
> people through the Bible, which is inspired by God and thus is infallible
> (or inerrant) from cover to cover. All Scripture is of divine origination;
> therefore, it is God's Word. "Every single word of the Bible is, by its
own
> witness to itself, infallibly true [cf. Mt. 5:18; Is. 45:19; Ps. 119:160;
> Ps. 119:160; Jn. 17:17].. [Thus,] the Bible is 'absolutely errorless' in
any
> of the subjects it touches on in teaching-whether statements about
history,
> natural history, ethnology, archaeology, geography, natural science,
> physical or historical fact, psychological or philosophical principle, or
> spiritual doctrine and duty."2 Because the Bible is God's special
> self-revelation of Himself to man and is infallible (i.e., objective
truth)
> it is the ultimate and final source of authority in all matters of
worship,
> doctrine and discipline.
The infallible (or inerrant) from cover to cover position is a position held
by Reform.
Linear extrapolation is when we assume that the values lie on a straight
line, in order to make estimates. You may be wearing the Fundamentalist
straightjacket, I'm not.
Fundamentalist literalists, conservatives and Maximalists deny human
intelligence and the human element in the Bible.
Non-literalists, liberals and Minimalists respect human intelligence and are
conscious of the human element in the Bible.
>
> Modernism is error.
Fundamentalism is also an error.
>
You presented the Reform point of view.
May I present the Catholic point of view.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM
A. Historical-Critical Method
The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the
scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch
as it is the "word of God in human language," has been composed by human
authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind
them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of
this method but actually requires it.
B. New Methods of Literary Analysis
No scientific method for the study of the Bible is fully adequate to
comprehend the biblical texts in all their richness. For all its overall
validity, the historical-critical method cannot claim to be totally
sufficient in this respect. It necessarily has to leave aside many aspects
of the writings which it studies. It is not surprising, then, that at the
present time other methods and approaches are proposed which serve to
explore more profoundly other aspects worthy of attention.
C. Approaches Based on Tradition
The literary methods which we have just reviewed, although they differ from
the historical-critical method in that they pay greater attention to the
internal unity of the texts studied, remain nonetheless insufficient for the
interpretation of the Bible because they consider each of its writings in
isolation. But the Bible is not a compilation of texts unrelated to each
other; rather, it is a gathering together of a whole array of witnesses from
one great tradition. To be fully adequate to the object of its study,
biblical exegesis must keep this truth firmly in mind. Such in fact is the
perspective adopted by a number of approaches which are being developed at
present
D. Approaches That Use the Human Sciences
In order to communicate itself, the word of God has taken root in the life
of human communities (cf. Sir. 24:12), and it has been through the
psychological dispositions of the various persons who composed the biblical
writings that it has pursued its path. It follows, then, that the human
sciences-in particular sociology, anthropology and psychology-can contribute
toward a better understanding of certain aspects of biblical texts. It
should be noted, however, that in this area there are several schools of
thought, with notable disagreement among them on the very nature of these
sciences. That said, a good number of exegetes have drawn considerable
profit in recent years from research of this kind.
E. Contextual Approaches
The interpretation of a text is always dependent on the mindset and concerns
of its readers. Readers give privileged attention to certain aspects and,
without even being aware of it, neglect others. Thus it is inevitable that
some exegetes bring to their work points of view that are new and responsive
to contemporary currents of thought which have not up till now been taken
sufficiently into consideration. It is important that they do so with
critical discernment. The movements in this regard which claim particular
attention today are those of liberation theology and feminism
____
For Fundamentalists:
The mean of locomotion of the serpent(s) before the fall is in the minds of
those who believe the serpent(s) existed before the fall. :-)
> Tom
>
>
Libertarius
===>How do you know that? Can you read the mind of "God"??? -- L.
=================
Uniacke
"Libertarius" <The_Truth_The_Whole_Truth@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in
message news:3B6C8345.C9BAED32@Nothing_But_The.Truth...
> Uniacke wrote:
>
> > "Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
> > news:XGVa7.2725$5d4.7...@monger.newsread.com...
> > >
> > > "Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message
> > > news:qrRa7.68964$Q13.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Paul was quite an expert on Biblical narratives in his dealings with
Jews and
> > Judeo-Christians.
> ===>He knew nothing of the sort. His writings show some familiarity
> with the Septuagint, but he deliberately misinterprets everything, since
> his readers did not understand and did not even have access to
> the OT literature. (E.g. the story of Adam, the story of Abraham
> and his sons, the story of Moses, etc.)
What's wrong with this?
"For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the
other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to
the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are said
by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina,
engendering unto bondage, which is Agar. For Sina is a mountain in Arabia,
which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with
her children"
And this:
"Not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which furnish questions
rather than the edification of God which is in faith.
But avoid foolish questions and genealogies and contentions and strivings
about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain."
And then this:
"Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed
should come to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the
hand of a mediator."
He wrote angels, the Jews we saying 'God'. What do you know? I'd say he was
smart, don't you think?
You mean to say that a person who could write that did not know his Jewish
Scripture.
I say he was smart. I don't care what books or scrolls he used, Tanach,
Septuagint, what not. I don't think he considered his writings Scriptures.
Paul was smart, he had wit. He was not like some pretentious cowboys riding
cows I know. ~~~ROtFLMAO~~~
>
> Libertarius
> ===========
>
Tom Albrecht
>
> Fundamentalist literalists, conservatives and Maximalists deny human
> intelligence and the human element in the Bible.
> Non-literalists, liberals and Minimalists respect human intelligence and
are
> conscious of the human element in the Bible.
Not at all. Inerrantists like me consider human intelligence as being very
important in understanding the Word of God and making determinations for
orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Where we part company with modernists is in
their proclivity to make human intelligence SUPERIOR to the mind of Christ
as revealed in Scripture.
"By destroying biblical authority, Modernists have severed all communication
with God. They cannot murder the true prophets of God like their apostate
predecessors did in Israel, so they did murder the Bible and its authority
instead." -- Brian Schwertley
Modernists of today are no different than the thinkers of Tertullian's day
who wished to bring their pagan philosophies into the Church. To that crowd
he wrote:
"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between
the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? Our
instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that
"the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart." Away with all attempts
to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic
composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus,
no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no
further belief. For this is our primary faith, that there is nothing which
we ought to believe besides!"
There is a pagan worldview and there is a Christian worldview. Those who
accept anything less than full inerrancy of Scripture have bought into the
pagan system.
Tom
Uniacke
easily and gracefully upon occasion in the cause of charity".
[Samuel Butler]
"Emitte lucem et veritatem"
"Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
news:sD0b7.1183$5d.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
Tom Albrecht
"Post tenebris lux"
Tom
"Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message
news:KJ0b7.44654$D55.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Uniacke
58:10] LOL.
"Send light and truth."
"Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
news:jK1b7.1199$5d.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
Tom Albrecht
Tom
"Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message
news:142b7.45443$D55.4...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Uniacke
have met each other: justice and peace have kissed. thy judgments I have not
forgotten.
"Tom Albrecht" <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
news:lg2b7.1203$5d.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
Uniacke
HOUR was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father: having
loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
I believe that "JESUS' HOUR" was the hour of his death.
I believe that at the feast in Cana, "HIS HOUR" had not yet come. [John
2:4].
I can understand Jesus and the Woman being at a feast in Cana.
But I do not believe Jesus and his mother Mary were at the feast in Cana.
A question of perception, our perception, Jesus' perception. Mother, Woman?
Gilad Achirami
Joh 12:1 - "Therefore six days before the Pesach, Yeshua came to Beit-Anyah,
where El'azar was, who had been dead, whom he raised from the dead."
Joh 13:1 - "Now before the feast of the Pesach, Yeshua knowing that his time
had come that he would depart out of this world to his Father, having loved
his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end."
John 12:16 - "These things his disciples did not know at the first: but when
Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of
him and that they had done these things to him. 17 The multitude therefore
gave testimony, which was with him, when he called Lazarus out of the grave
and raised him from the dead."
I have no problem believing that Jesus could have had a leper as a friend.
That is not the point.
My problem is with Lazarus. I cannot see Lazarus being raised from the dead
during Jesus' life on earth. It had to be after Pasach and not before. It
could have happened during Matzah, days, months, years after, may have
happened yesterday or happen in days to come.
I say this because his hour had not yet come and that his real life began
the fourteenth day of the first month at even.
"Uniacke" <Unia...@rebelspiders.com> wrote in message
news:dyQb7.21279$_62.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...