jewscout said:
personal choice IMPO
This answer seems to reject interpretation governed by reason. We're supposed to think when we read the texts, aren't we?
If it is simply personal choice that governs our interpretative method, then we can come to
any conclusion, no matter how unrelated to the text, and affirm one another simply with the mutual comfort that all of our silliness comes from personal choice.
Reason should govern our reading!:149:
BTW, I think that I can argue that it's not personal choice that either of you arrive at your conclusions. Both of you have claimed to be part of different
communities.
Sandy, from my observation, identifies herself with mindless Christian fundamentalists who think that the English Bible is God's direct word to humanity, and a plain reading of the text guides theology and mission of the church today.
Jewscout, from my observation, identifies himself with Judaism, and relies on a traditional interpretaion of the Tanach while paying attention to the Hebrew and how it has been interperted traditionally by his group.
I find it extremely hard to believe that both of your interpretations are rooted in personal choices concerning the text itself, but rather are the
result of commitment to a larger theology that is ultimately based on the critical review of multiple texts by several people.
Unfortunately for Sandy, her interpetation incorporates so many foriegn elements to the text that she is unable to demonstrate that her conclusions match her evidence.