– William Blake

Old Nobodaddy is the author of (metaphysical) evil. Himself is evil. It’s an answer that belongs to Gnosticism. The “God” of the Book is not God. Matter is dead stuff. The spirit is wholly other.

Open up your horizons in space (geography), time (the last 5 thousand years) and value (cultural norms) — have some fun people! Your limitations put lead in your minds.

Until you can play with concepts, they’ll play you false.

bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007

So sad… but unfortunately (in my experience at least) this is usually true… I know I’ve been guilty of this in the past as well. I’m trying to change that though.

< know we will never be able to fully read it objectively, but how does putting our own subjective cultural assumptions into the text make a text (which was written objectively) more relevant?

Except no text is written objectively, either. History texts, science texts: all are written from a certain perspective, and to promote a certain viewpoint. Nothing written is ever objective, which is why I don’t think the wall example works. We also lack the ability to see many things, if not all things, objectively.

Even in terms of the husband/wife example — I wouldn’t say I’m using a current context to interpret the Bible. Rather, with the two Mattew verses I provided, I was saying that to me, it clearly states those living when Jesus walked the Earth would see the son of man returning. Yet, this did not happen, and so current circumstances force those verses to no longer be straightforward. Same with Paul’s letters, such as him saying we shall not all sleep/die, but we shall all be changed. That ‘we’ is read as not referring to him, because he did die. And yet did he mean it that way? Based on his other geniune letters, I would say no.

The hebrew word used for “God” is “elohim.” Elohim is PLURAL. Weird, huh?

Not really, considering that God referred to Moses as ‘elohim.’ And there are other hebrew words in the plural that only referred to singular entities.

Also, Jesus said God the Father was the only God, yet he also said that HE was God, and prayed to God the father at the same time. Kinda weird and schizo without the explanation of the Trinity.

That would depend on the interpretaion of the verses used to say that Jesus says he is God — he doesn’t say point-blank: “I am God.” Rather, verses where he says he and the father are one, or the “I am” verses are taken to mean that from a certain perspective.

The theory (while the term is not found in scripture) is drawn from multiple verses talking about the plurality of God’s personhood yet singularity of His divinity.

It’s not just the theory, though. It’s everything that is used to describe the Trinity. A blank slate person reading the BIble would have no problem concluding in the resurrection, or the second coming, or Jesus dying for sin. It’s a matter of the word ‘incarnate’ or ‘co-equal’ or ‘same substance.’ Everything used to make up the definition of the Trinity is not clearly or explicitly stated in the Bible. And yet the Bible alone should be able to lead to the Trinity, and all the words used to define the Trinity, with no difficulty whatsoever.

The doctrine of the Trinity was truly exegetical, and is the ONLY reason why it has survived 2,000 years of cultural change and evolution.

I would disagree with this. For a very long time in history, the Catholic Church basically told people what to think about Christianity, as the layman lacked the ability to read the Bible. It was also fond of killing heretics or targeting anything non-Biblical, so why would anyone risk going against any of the Catholic concepts? After the Reformation, people were still killed for this. Even today, there are polls that show many Christians are not familiar with the Bible itself, but what people tell them about religion and the Bible.

The idea of the Pople (and I’m not Catholic so I may have this wrong) isn’t clearly stated in the Bible, and so isn’t that why Protestants don’t hold to the Pope or the Catholic church? And yet that church would argue that it’s drawn from Bible verses.

“Anything that we read, interact with, talk about is always accompanied by our beliefs, our assumptions, our paradigm, and so on. Just look at all the different denominations for proof of that: readings are subjective. Everything we do/see/interpret is subjective.”

I agree! But the text itself is objective and not subjective. I know we will never be able to fully read it objectively, but how does putting our own subjective cultural assumptions into the text make a text (which was written objectively) more relevant?

An example: A wall is still a wall, no matter how subjectively we view it. If we subjectively view an objectively true wall as a DOOR, we will only run into a wall.

So what’s the answer? We ATTEMPT to engage the text objectively. No, it wil not be perfect, but this is why we seek to understand the context (author, audience, etc.), so that we can at least become CLOSER to the objective truth.

Many things that should be straightforward are no longer seen as such, but must be interpreted to fit an outside concept.

Why? Why must that be so? I understand and see how others have eisegeted scripture, but because they have does not mean that it is not possible to exegete the same scripture.

If your husband (making an assumption here) made a comment to you that seemed mean, yet didn’t fit your current circumstances, what would you do? Would you try to apply the current circumstances to his comment and try to make them fit? No (and I know you agree here), of course not. Or, would you ask questions in return trying to understand him better (objective exegesis)? Would the fact that you are not him (a woman with very different life experiences, personality, background, consciousness, etc.) keep you from trying to understand him? Would the fact that it is not possible to be 100% objective with your “reading” of him stop you from trying and switch to trying to apply his comment symbolically?

I hope you see what I am trying to say. The current postmodern cultural trend has really distorted how we interact with “truth” in general, and this has bled over into how we read scripture.

Please check out my most recent post for case in point, I promise it will even make more sense:
http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/on-truth-and-kinda-truth-part-1-postmodernisms-effect-on-epistemology/

And in Re: to the Trinity… it really is not a liberty taken and applied into the text. The theory (while the term is not found in scripture) is drawn from multiple verses talking about the plurality of God’s personhood yet singularity of His divinity.

For example:
There is one God, no other God before him. BUT,
The hebrew word used for “God” is “elohim.” Elohim is PLURAL. Weird, huh?

Also, Jesus said God the Father was the only God, yet he also said that HE was God, and prayed to God the father at the same time. Kinda weird and schizo without the explanation of the Trinity.

Proper Exegesis is NOT inserting the reader’s context, but drawing information, conclusion, and reconciliation from a given text. The doctrine of the Trinity was truly exegetical, and is the ONLY reason why it has survived 2,000 years of cultural change and evolution.

If those who came up with this doctrine had inserted their own opinions, how in the WORLD would it still be regularly accepted today?

Now, it is entirely possible and probably that it is in contradiction to our eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis). We often read our perspective and context into the text. This almost always creates problems.

The difficulty here is that nothing is read in a vacuum. Anything that we read, interact with, talk about is always accompanied by our beliefs, our assumptions, our paradigm, and so on. Just look at all the different denominations for proof of that: readings are subjective. Everything we do/see/interpret is subjective.

The other difficulty I have with the inerrancy is that the justification comes across as slippery to me. If a Mormon or a Muslim used the same method as Christians used to claim that the Book of Morman or the Qur’an,was inerrent, Christians would say that their inerrant proofs don’t work. Yet the same method is used on the Bible, and suddenly it’s inerrant.

Two separate things that are often hard to delineate because when Jesus says “I” (or any other 1st person pronoun), he COULD be referring to the whole trinity. If you view the HS as another person of the same God, this fits perfectly and is not in contradiction.

In terms of Matthew 16, I read that as Christ’s second coming, and some standing there will not taste death. I read this in terms of the second coming because Jesus says right before that that the Son of Man will come with the glory of his Father with his angels. In Matthew 24:34, the present generation will live to see it all, and I read the coming of the son of man as part of that. Now, to me, that is the straightforward reading. But becaus the second coming obviously didn’t happen 2,000 years ago, it comes across as the text gets re-interpreted. I know you’ll disagree, but this ties into my problem with claiming the Bible is inerrant. Many things that should be straightforward are no longer seen as such, but must be interpreted to fit an outside concept. And again — I read this in full about five years ago, and this is one of the many passages that just didn’t ring with how Christianity is shown today. Is my viewpoint objective? Of course not, no one’s is.

Even take the idea of the Trinity, and that the 1st person pronoun referring to the whole Trinity — one of the interesting things about Sola Scripture is that it’s the BIble alone, and one should be able to just use the Bible. However, in terms of the Trinity, if you just used the Bible, you would not walk away with the Trinity at all. You’d walk away with the idea of Jesus dying for sins, the cross, resurrection, God/Father and so on. But if someone with no knowledge of Christinaity — if this person were a blank slate– were given a Bible, would they be able to find it at all? Would they find reference to the words ‘God the Son’ or ‘three-in-one’ or all three co-equal or the same substance or anything that makes up the definition of the Trinity? Would the blank slate person walk away with a Trinitarian idea that even comes close to matching what is used today? Shouldn’t they be able to if the BIble is all that is needed? So even here, I see the data being interpreted to fit an eisegesis view, and a matter of a subjective viewpoint.

Heh, I didn’t even consider the redundancy aspect. You are very right. It is the same argument for Wright’s interpretation of Romans 3… but that is a WHOLE nother can of worms…

Heather,
I literally laughed out loud to read your Left Behind Version. I also call it the “wrong version,” but that’s my opinion. I’m pretty sure that those books are built on the pre-mil view of eschatology. I probably lean post-mil (non-dispensational), but again, I’m not 100% sure what that means…

mostly see this passage as lending further credence to the fact that the Bible doesn’t present a uniform view on the concept of salvation/heaven/the afterlife, but the writers almost “feeling as they go” in terms of putting these concepts into words.

Well… I don’t know that I agree with that. I agree that it is probably very difficult to put into words what the human language has never had to communicate, but I disagree that it is not uniform. Jesus gave many parables about the “kingdom,” and there is a lot of symbolism, but I have yet to see anywhere that it is in contradiction. Now, it is entirely possible and probably that it is in contradiction to our eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis). We often read our perspective and context into the text. This almost always creates problems.

Jesus alludes to a Paradise, yet also makes mention of the second coming in earlier sections, and it occuring within the disciples lifetimes.

Ahh, yes. But there is the coming of the Holy Spirit (Pentacost) and there is the coming of Christ. Two separate things that are often hard to delineate because when Jesus says “I” (or any other 1st person pronoun), he COULD be referring to the whole trinity. If you view the HS as another person of the same God, this fits perfectly and is not in contradiction.

becoming aware of the different positions on the second coming (pre-mil, post-mil, o-mil, and everywhere in between).

I’m most familiarwith the Left Behind variety, which basically goes, “Burn in hell, you heathen/Catholic/Jew/Christian-but-not-really-because-you-fail-at-section 3, paragraph 4, subparagraph A- of-our-christian creed you!”

HIS,

Wow – I can’t believe Heather remembered that article I wrote. Maybe I willl reprint it here.

It had a catchy title. I do agree that saying “Truly, I say to you today, you shall …” does seem very redunent, and do like the other reading, as it influences the idea of Christ descending into hell after death. However, it does assume that the thief died on the same day …

I mostly see this passage as lending further credence to the fact that the Bible doesn’t present a uniform view on the concept of salvation/heaven/the afterlife, but the writers almost “feeling as they go” in terms of putting these concepts into words. Paul has the day of Judgement, Jesus alludes to a Paradise, yet also makes mention of the second coming in earlier sections, and it occuring within the disciples lifetimes.