tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post5352512169450611558..comments2024-03-29T08:14:29.603+01:00Comments on The Ugley Vicar: From Genesis to Jesus: Eve in Christian perspectiveAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-75491603359118157612012-09-08T12:48:12.257+01:002012-09-08T12:48:12.257+01:00Ok, we're back online after moving house. So, ...Ok, we're back online after moving house. So, can we get back to the topic now?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-15469308006768623362012-09-03T20:15:32.118+01:002012-09-03T20:15:32.118+01:00I'm with John on that.
Although as I cycled i...I'm with John on that.<br /><br />Although as I cycled into Chelmsford today, I see that I have minority view on interpretation,as people brought their modern critical methods to the "Cyclists Only" signs.<br /><br />Really, I think Andrew's answer about Biblical scholars is a car crash. It produces a cast of Priests & keeps the Bible from the hands of ordinary people & still leaves the questions about presuppositions (scholars have theirs).<br /><br />It also shows a failure to see where Evangelicals come from. Dick Lucas, former Rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, co-founder of the Proc-Trust used to say things like, "It's not written to you silly" & "You need to go back to Corinth". Of course not being written "to" & not being written "for" are different matters. Read a commentary like Carson's & you see that Evangelicals are happy to grapple with knotty issues & other traditions. Indeed in theological training they have to. It seems from some rather bland caricatures, the same doesn't happen the other way.<br /><br />Of course, perhaps THE distinctive thing about Bible interpretation for Evangelicals and does actually relate to the original post... Evangelicals do believe the the Bible is a whole unit, made up of parts. The knotty questions of how this bit fits with that-is where the hard work starts & the rewards found.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-34153791302762681032012-09-03T15:34:59.650+01:002012-09-03T15:34:59.650+01:00John
If you agree with what Chris Bishop has post...John<br /><br />If you agree with what Chris Bishop has posted then you have answered my questions about the book of Job havent you? <br />My views of Job are implicit in my questions, and made more explicit by Chris's comment. I am glad to see that you do not take it literally. That is enlighthening in itself! Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-19991684676567046442012-09-03T14:33:53.604+01:002012-09-03T14:33:53.604+01:00PS, I don't see anything to disagree with in C...PS, I don't see anything to disagree with in Chris Bishop's post, but there are now 53 comments on this thread <i>almost none of which pick up anything in the original article</i>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-16468226430192846962012-09-03T12:13:39.514+01:002012-09-03T12:13:39.514+01:00Andrew, like I've said, this is not a discussi...Andrew, like I've said, this is not a discussion I'm interested in on this blog at this time. If you want to post with your views of Job, go ahead and see if you can stimulate some discussion of those.<br /><br />However, I do not see either enlightenment or change as a likely outcome. Hence my backing off from it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-71979272591789143032012-09-03T11:50:36.853+01:002012-09-03T11:50:36.853+01:00I'd be glad of yours and John's answers to...I'd be glad of yours and John's answers to the questions about Job. I think they hold the key to quite a lot of this discussion. <br /><br />Chris Bishop's post above seems to me to be extremely helpful. Can you agree to what he says there YP? Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-8695834587095646442012-09-03T09:12:05.386+01:002012-09-03T09:12:05.386+01:00But none of this answers the point I make about di...But none of this answers the point I make about differing understandings of Scripture. Andrew, you say that everyone has their favourites. What if my favourites are those who take the Bible literally?<br />And you are right that I haven't put anything about Job, I was referring to my posts about Genesis since I read the comment to be about the general themes in this thread, not just Job.Youthpastahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804231190378769527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-76925820243463523572012-09-02T19:27:33.684+01:002012-09-02T19:27:33.684+01:00Wonderful post Chris. Many thanks.Wonderful post Chris. Many thanks.Andrew Godsall, exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-10014379616848028892012-09-01T14:56:55.429+01:002012-09-01T14:56:55.429+01:00“And I think this is very important because if we ...“And I think this is very important because if we are to choose to read the Bible in the light of experts, rather than in the light of what the Bible says about itself,..”<br /><br />YP, the second part of your statement above is in itself a very slippery one. Everything the Bible says needs to be translated. It was not written in English. The OT was not written to us but to Israel. It was the revelation of God to Israel and through Israel to everyone else. It is not just the language of the Bible that needs to be translated but also the culture in which it was written. Every language whether Hebrew or English operates in a culture and unless that culture is correctly understood then the likelihood of us misinterpreting scripture increases. <br /><br />The book of Job for example, which many evangelicals regard as a literal narrative is not regarded that way by Jews. In the context of the culture in which it was written then there are very strong arguments for it to be seen as a Jewish morality tale rather than a literal account. This does not in one whit diminish its divine inspiration but shows what the Bible says about itself is not so straightforward to interpret as it first appears.<br /><br />I meet many evangelical Christians who refer to the ‘plain meaning of scripture’ who are really making an underlying assumption that God actually spoke the Queen’s English in ancient times. He didn't.<br /><br />BTW I also know of some Anglicans who still think God is an Englishman and some evangelicals, that the early church was really comprised of middle class Baptists, but a discussion of that will have to wait for another thread at John’s discretion…<br /><br />Chris Bishop<br />Devon <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-5725589734533114902012-09-01T11:40:25.306+01:002012-09-01T11:40:25.306+01:00I can't see your answers about the book of Job...I can't see your answers about the book of Job YP. Where are they? <br />As to which biblical scholars......best to look at several... We all have our favourites...Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-19958403610276742362012-09-01T09:30:08.674+01:002012-09-01T09:30:08.674+01:00I believe I have already given 1 literal understan...I believe I have already given 1 literal understanding. My question still stands, though. If we are to rely on Bible scholars then how do we know who to go to, whether they be literal or non-literal?<br />And I think this is very important because if we are to choose to read the Bible in the light of experts, rather than in the light of what the Bible says about itself, then we need to know which Bible scholars are right and which aren't, because some would argue as you do, Andrew, some would argue in John's favour and others would argue in many other different ways.<br />And I don't think that an answer involving the Spirit can work, because this would be to suggest that wherever an individual was "led" would invalidate all other ways of understanding the Bible.Youthpastahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804231190378769527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-11883045520481204992012-08-31T21:17:59.244+01:002012-08-31T21:17:59.244+01:00I think my questions are enough John. If Youthpast...I think my questions are enough John. If Youthpasta or Darren or anyone wanting to suggest a literal approach wish to reply to them that's fine. Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-29355304818851103502012-08-31T18:29:35.083+01:002012-08-31T18:29:35.083+01:00Andrew, for the record, I personally didn't wa...Andrew, for the record, I personally didn't want a discussion of literal interpretations - you started on Youthpasta about literal meanings, he responded, and I suggested some parameters which you might like to consider to lift the conversation out of the usual rut.<br /><br />I just don't think it is likely to be a fruitful discussion, but if you want to tell folks what you think about Job and see if anyone 'bites', go ahead.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-28077536816537254522012-08-31T15:12:01.534+01:002012-08-31T15:12:01.534+01:00Ok, another important question then:
Which Bible s...Ok, another important question then:<br />Which Bible scholars do you go to? After all, some will be at polar opposites to others on the interpretation of scripture. And what about when we are in the dark about the history behind the reasons for writing the letters, for example? Do we have to assume certain situations or can we simply say that we take what we know, ignore what we don't know and then read it in the context we have created?Youthpastahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804231190378769527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-86970724041978412252012-08-31T14:02:23.960+01:002012-08-31T14:02:23.960+01:00Oh come on John. You can't ask for a discussio...Oh come on John. You can't ask for a discussion about literal interpretations and then back out. I'm raising very real and serious questions about an issue you asked us to discuss! Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-50853358661035423072012-08-31T12:59:04.612+01:002012-08-31T12:59:04.612+01:00Andrew, I honestly think that although Job is a gr...Andrew, I honestly think that although Job is a great book, which I've been studying quite a lot recently, a typical blog discussion such as you propose would serve no purpose. At whom is it aimed - you, me, Uncle Tom Cobley?<br /><br />How could we tell anyway? Do you know? Does anyone alive now, apart from God?<br /><br />No, I think I'll pass on that one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-80251572915511008572012-08-31T10:38:33.361+01:002012-08-31T10:38:33.361+01:00Haha...and of course 2 Tim 2:14 needed to be taken...Haha...and of course 2 Tim 2:14 needed to be taken litertally by those for whom it was written. It was not literally written for us - so we need to approach it differently. That is not to say it is not true. But it was written for a specific context. <br />The bit of the Psalms you quote is a good and easy example. Lets go to something like the book of Job. Was there literally such a person called Job? Did Job have the exact conversation with God that is recorded at the end of that book? How did God speak? Andrew Godsallnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-57395797470038780492012-08-31T10:04:51.177+01:002012-08-31T10:04:51.177+01:00PS I am taking 2 Tim 2:14 'literally': &qu...PS I am taking 2 Tim 2:14 'literally': "Warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-29559215439757019672012-08-31T10:00:12.176+01:002012-08-31T10:00:12.176+01:00Whooah! We reach agreement, and then everyone igno...Whooah! We reach agreement, and then everyone ignores what I say and goes back to polemic. (Much more fun, I suppose, but much less edifying - eg remarks about "evangelical stables".)<br /><br />The point I made earlier was that <i>every</i> text should be examined for its 'literal' meaning. We can always usefully ask the question "To what actual events and observable physical realities does this text correspond?"<br /><br />For example, people often cite the text about the mountains that "skipped like rams" (Ps 114:4) as an easy example of a text <i>not</i> to be taken literally. But if we ask whether the words have any reference to the physical world, obviously they do. We have not <i>excluded</i> a 'literal' sense by recognizing a figure of speech.<br /><br />Could we not have a bit of a discussion about that point? If not, I'm minded to shut the thread down because I do actually have to read this stuff and it gets a bit boring.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-77043613891066456762012-08-31T09:10:02.797+01:002012-08-31T09:10:02.797+01:00So many things one could say. Time is short so her...So many things one could say. Time is short so here are a few:<br /><br />A crucial question is to ask - what did they believe then that made them express things the way they do? (That the earth was flat, and that the planets all revolved around the earth are two easy examples). <br /><br />'Proof texting' is a dangerous business, because you need to understand the context, not least the answer to the above question. <br /><br />Texts that are used to invite people into fellowship with God are at the heart of scripture. Texts that are used to beat people with probably have various other interpretations open to them. <br /><br />Biblical scholars are experts in their field. I'm not one. But I trust those who are. They tend to be employed in the world's universities or as freelance scholars and not conservative evangelical stables. Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-63770219344985650252012-08-30T22:03:17.689+01:002012-08-30T22:03:17.689+01:00Andrew, how do you suggest people decide which par...Andrew, how do you suggest people decide which parts of the Bible to take literally and which bits to take figuratively?Youthpastahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804231190378769527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-84441277732580763912012-08-30T18:44:10.596+01:002012-08-30T18:44:10.596+01:00Quite - the Bible itself is blatant in offering di...Quite - the Bible itself is blatant in offering different kinds of literature. Also, offers internal interpretations of itself.<br /><br />There are still some questions for Andrew's methodology. In it's lack of inerrency, who decides when "new" information shows us the Bible's error? For e.g. is it in error when Jesus says "love your neighbour"? I guess not, how about hell, mmmm. You see what I mean. Could it be, that evidence we use to highlight errors, are themselves in error, or misunderstood.<br /><br />Are you saying that you have enough intelligence, spiritual power & neutrality to work that out?<br /><br />Does this mean that the Holy Spirit isn't able to inspire Scripture, or he is but not able to keep the right bits in? In which case, who decides which bits he hit the target on?<br /><br />Back to earlier statement... I think there is a difference between "revelation" & "insight".Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08361261497867599745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-10810097202384182192012-08-30T12:47:52.145+01:002012-08-30T12:47:52.145+01:00Good to see so much agreement! Perhaps that could ...Good to see so much agreement! Perhaps that could be used to find agreement in more areas of methodolgy.<br /><br />Personally, I'd like to see a bit more subtlety about the use of the word 'literally'. Up to the Medieval period, it was generally acknowledged that the 'literal' understanding of a passage was <i>necessarily</i> part of our interpretation, but that it was not the <i>only</i> part.<br /><br />When Augustine wrote on the 'literal' meaning of Genesis, he was asking 'to what actual events does this text correspond?'. That, it seems to me, is something that no one could object to. His conclusions were very different from those of modern 'Six Day Creationists', but he was quite clear he was taking Genesis 'literally'.<br /><br />The challenge is that it calls all of us to have a 'literal' understanding of Genesis -- and every other part of the Bible. But then it also calls us to go on and ask what else the passage has to say -- what other levels of meaning it has. Some people will find the former challenge difficult to accept, others the latter, but it seems to me we should all be doing both.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03590979027426082714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-11813360386177041162012-08-30T09:03:20.723+01:002012-08-30T09:03:20.723+01:00Yes
Yes
Yes
But it does not mean that the bible i...Yes<br />Yes<br />Yes<br /><br />But it does not mean that the bible is to be interpreted literally or that is inerrant. Andrew Godsall, Exeternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9031852996869768738.post-52856400991214752512012-08-30T08:48:51.479+01:002012-08-30T08:48:51.479+01:001 - Yes
2 - Yes
3 - Yes, other than the fact He ex...1 - Yes<br />2 - Yes<br />3 - Yes, other than the fact He existed.<br />No further comment needed, at least for the moment.Youthpastahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804231190378769527noreply@blogger.com