sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Snark much?Oh really?
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Snark much?Oh really?
Another assumption.Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
A hope. I hope your response makes you feel better about yourselfAnother assumption.
In Conversation with other Christians and even non Christians ,it seems as though a lot of what they believe is not always what the bible actually says.
What i mean by this is when someone will say the bible ' teaches ' this and that ,when this is often at the cost of what the bible actually SAYS . A lot of the time its usually 'inference ' . " oh I know it doesn't say such and such ,but this is what it really means. And I'm not talking about difficult things like the trinity ,in which we will struggle with as its something that we do not experience in our limited dimension/ experience. I'm referring to the basics , the essentials in which we should expect God to have wanted to be understood plainly .
Syllogism, Inference , assumption and deduction seems to be the slippery approach to the bible in which we can almost make the verses say what we want because we reading INTO the verses instead of allowing the bible to SAY what it means .
Non Christians do this when they already have a presupposition/ paradigm / worldview ,and they approach the bible and instead of reading what the bible SAYS they will impose an interpretation because they feel its inferring something they already believe . Sadly Christians also do this . Were all not immune from presuppositions and our minds tend to fill in what we already assume through bias ect . But let's test if we believe what we believe by what the bible SAYS .
Take what you believe about the bible and see if what you believe there is a verse or verses that SAY what you believe . Of course context matters . The who , what, when why and where questions apply and normal reading comprehension .
You can also test me if I can back up what I believe by demonstrating by what the bible SAYS and not always what is inferred or assumed .
I got it......up front
the earth (substance) was with out form
what we know as this solar system......came much later
You’re talking about two different processes: the process of exegesis, and the process of interpretation. Interpretation rises out of exegesis. Why? Because exegesis strips away the filters through which we read and offers an unbiased reading of what the text actually says. Once we know what the text actually says, we can derive an interpretation of that reading. One does not involve any spiritual influence. The other may.
the exegetical process isn’t necessarily concerned with the spiritual realm. Rather, it’s concerned with the physical realm of deciphering what has been written. Only when we know what’s written can we discern spiritual meaning.Well it's evidence that you have no clue or idea what Spiritual discernment is..
There are certain things that are written done that takes Spiritual discernment to understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm...
Even Jesus Christ said himself in
John 6:63--"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life"therefore there are many things that Jesus Christ spoken that are spirit and will definitely take Spiritual discernment to understand..what is being said in the Spiritual realm..
As written in
1 Corinthians 2:14--"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are Spiritually discerned"
Therefore unless you understand Spiritual discernment you will never understand what the Spirit of God is saying in the Spiritual realm..
It? What is "it", and how does "it" work? Please be specific.No, that’s not how it works.
That's not how it works.Sure, as long as the dates and provenance match up.
Over 20 years. And a lot of post-graduate work. You?Also, how long have you been in this field? You tend to credit yourself with a lot of knowledge.
Does that knowledge include the understanding that archaeological discoveries does not prove nor disprove whether a Biblical story - for example, resurrection - is true or not, but can confirm historical contexts - such as people, places, events, etc.?
You obviously have your opinion, like other scholars do. It differs to what I read in other scholarly work, including other works reviewing the facts, one of which I just posted, and you have not read, obviously.Over 20 years. And a lot of post-graduate work. You?
Do you understand that if there’s nothing in the archaeological record to corroborate such a large cultural shift, that it’s unlikely the shift occurred as “reported?”
In biblical scholarship, opinions vary, because so little is hard and fast. It really comes down to “pick your camp.”You obviously have your opinion, like other scholars do. It differs to what I read in other scholarly work, including other works reviewing the facts, one of which I just posted, and you have not read, obviously.
Except there wasn’t a large cultural shift, it was little by little like God said. Also the tribes didn’t drive the other people out like they were supposed to and made a covenant when they weren’t supposed to as well.Over 20 years. And a lot of post-graduate work. You?
Do you understand that if there’s nothing in the archaeological record to corroborate such a large cultural shift, that it’s unlikely the shift occurred as “reported?”
anyone can recite and quoteTherefore try reading it without your private interpretation being add in..
it doesn’t matter. There is no evidence of outside culture coming in. All archaeological evidence is from the same culture.Except there wasn’t a large cultural shift, it was little by little like God said. Also the tribes didn’t drive the other people out like they were supposed to and made a covenant when they weren’t supposed to as well.
““I will send My fear before you, I will cause confusion among all the people to whom you come, and will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. And I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before you. I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased, and you inherit the land.”
Exodus 23:27-30 NKJV
Also Judges 1-3 describe what happened
What do you mean by that?it doesn’t matter. There is no evidence of outside culture coming in. All archaeological evidence is from the same culture.
All evidence shows that all who dwelt in Canaan during that period were culturally similar.What do you mean by that?
Still not very clear, are you saying they had the same beliefs or what? It’s a broad termAll evidence shows that all who dwelt in Canaan during that period were culturally similar.
When you read Judges it’s clear that Israel continued to adopt the culture of the people around them, that was a continuous problem so don’t see what the problem is.All evidence shows that all who dwelt in Canaan during that period were culturally similar.
Why is an ancient text of questionable provenance more reliable than archeological evidence? We’re talking at the time of the alleged invasion, not years and years later.When you read Judges it’s clear that Israel continued to adopt the culture of the people around them, that was a continuous problem so don’t see what the problem is.
I don’t see the discrepancy other than I trust God’s Book more than man’s interpretation.Why is an ancient text of questionable provenance more reliable than archeological evidence? We’re talking at the time of the alleged invasion, not years and years later.