+
+
/ Topic ->
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/1 / 1Nov2001 /
/ Forum: TheologyOnLine
- Philosophy & Theology /
.
Dear bill,
I agree that a faithful person will always be able to get more out of the
Word of God than an unbeliever (no matter how skilled and educated), but
to rely upon the Holy Spirit in place of all rational procedure and methodology
is nothing more than intellectual laziness, and ought not to be tolerated.
Reason and faith working together is obviously better than an arrogant,
pious ignorance that expects the Holy Spirit to do all the work for the
Reader.
.
Moreover,
the Spirit is not given equally to all believers; but rather some receive
a greater measure than others (according to the will of the Lord). As Paul
says, not all are prophets, and not all are interpreters. What this means
is that the wise believer will be attentive to those who are prophets and
interpreters (according to the grace of God bestowed upon them), for they
are better qualified to read the scriptures rightly. Those who rely only
upon themselves (and the HS), and scorn the fruits of biblical scholarship,
tend to lord it over the Text, and thus hear only what they want to hear
(for they are incapable of letting the text speak for itself). Therefore
a truly rational and faithful post-modern hermeneutics necessarily relies
upon the soft and subtle workings of the Holy Spirit; although this will
by no means be immediately apparent to the casual reader.
.
As for John
16:13, I regard this as a basic hermeneutical presupposition. If we truly
believe that the Spirit "will show you things to come", then we cannot
rest content with the idolatrous fantasy that the Bible contains *ALL*
truth, and that nothing more needs be said. Such a view inevitably puts
a muzzle upon the Spirit, and prevents us from remaining watchful and listening
carefully. Why should we listen to anyone when we "know" in advance that
the Spirit has nothing more to say? But a rational and faithful post-modern
hermeneutics proceeds from the assumption that the Spirit still has much
to show us. After all, you simply cannot teach someone who already knows
it all.
.
Dear Metachoi,
if you believe that errors and additions have not crept into the Text during
all those centuries of transmission, then you have been misinformed, period.
God is not the one who was doing all that copying and translating. That
was done by men. Human, fallible, and limited men. Men who were prone to
make mistakes when they were cold, and tired, and hungry, and in desperate
need of sleep. If you believe that God constantly intervened to override
the natural results of human fallibility, then I can only conclude that
your understanding of the historical process in general is a gross abomination
that only dishonors and diminishes the Faith!
.
You say that
"I have never seen an addition to the text that would cause a theological
system to crumble". That is not the point, Metachoi. I am not interested
in undermining theological systems. But I am *very* interested in correctly
understanding the sacred texts, their origins and history, their authors
and first readers, and the original intentions of those authors. These
additions, or encrustations (as I sometimes refer to them), tend to obscure
all these things, and thus prevent us from reaching an adequate understanding
and appreciation of the sacred books.
.
Good quote
there, Metachoi. Did you know that one of the implications of Eph.4:11-13
is that apostles, prophets, and evangelists will continue to play their
roles within the Body of Christ "until we all attain ...". This means that
there are prophets at work even today. Do you believe that there are prophets
among us? Perhaps even right here in cyber-space? ... But many believers
seem to think that there are no more prophets, since the Bible has rendered
them null and void! Why do you suppose that is, eh?
.
Dear Maelstrom,
I agree with you that it is possible, but as I hope my article suggests,
it is by no means a simple and easy thing, but rather it demands considerable
effort, discipline, determination, and a willingness to listen to others,
as well as to new ideas.
- the one with many
new ideas - textman ;>
+
+
/ Topic ->
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/1 / 2Nov2001 /
/ Forum: TheologyOnLine
- Philosophy & Theology /
.
>> bill wrote: But if someone
claims special knowledge for
>> the whole church from
the HS, then as Bereans we better
>> check the scriptures
with our tools to see if that
>> special knowledge could
be true.
.
Dear bill, well said.
It's true that I expect a lot from my readers; including a willingness
to listen, and a mind open to new ideas. But if the reader will sincerely
check my claims against the evidence of the texts in a thoughtful and sensible
manner, then I am quite content. Indeed, I will even entertain objections
and criticisms to the contrary.
.
Well, after all, that's
what we're all here for. Right? ... :)
.
> Metachoi wrote: I have
not been shown evidence that there
> are errors besides transposing
a letter with another, or
> a slight misspelling of
a word.
.
Dear Metachoi, here
is an example (Song of Songs 5:2-6) of an error (ie. a slipped or displaced
verse) that is clearly the result of a mistake made (probably by a sleepy
scribe) during the transmission process:
.
(2a)
(I slept; but my heart was awake ...)
(2b)
Hark! My beloved is knocking.
(6c)
I was stunned by the breath of desire when he spoke:
(2c)
'Open to me, my Sister, my Love;
(2e)
for my head is wet with dew.
(2d)
O my Perfect One, my Dove;
(2f)
and my locks with the drops of the night.'
(3a)
I had already put off my garment; how could I put it on?
(3b)
I had already bathed my feet; how could I soil them?
(4a)
So my beloved put his hand to the hole;
(4b)
and my loins heaved within me.
(5ab)
I arose to open to my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh,
(5cd)
my fingers with liquid myrrh; upon the handles of the bolt.
(6ab)
I opened to my beloved ... but my beloved had turned and gone.
(6d)
I sought him; but found him not.
(6e)
(I called him ... but he gave no answer).
.
It's true that this
error has no real doctrinal significance. I merely offer it as an example
of a transmission related mistake that goes beyond the more minor gaffs
you mentioned. Rest assured that such errors are by no means exceedingly
rare. They are, however, unintentional alterations; which is certainly
not the case with deliberate additions to the text (of which there are
many).
.
Now you say that these
additions do not affect doctrine, but they certainly have doctrinal (and
other) implications. 4X: 1Peter 5:13 ["The church in Babylon, chosen together
with you, greets you, and so does Mark, my son"] is a second-century addition
that deliberately intends to make the reader think that the epistle was
written in Rome (it was not), thereby serving the end of magnifying the
status and authority of the Romish church. The implications of *that* are
obvious.
.
> I don't believe the gift
of prophecy has ceased. <snip some>
.
Bless you.
.
> I believe that there are
no longer people in the office of prophet,
> i.e. someone like Isaiah,
Daniel, John the Baptist.
.
How you can hold both
these views at the same time is beyond me ... :)
So I guess you don't take
Ephesians 4:11-13 as seriously as you've led us to believe? What I mean
is that your theological doctrines (ie. no more prophets) supercedes the
plain meaning of the text (ie. prophets will remain among believers 'until
we all attain').
.
- one who has yet to attain to the fulll stature - textman ;>
x
+
/ Topic ->
Re: PoMo Hermeneutics/1 / 3Nov2001 /
/ Forum: TheologyOnLine
- Philosophy & Theology /
.
> Metachoi wrote:
The New Testament meaning of prophet is different
> than an OT prophet.
An apostle is equivalent to an OT prophet.
.
It's my understanding
that the best definition of 'apostle' is 'prophet of Christ' or simply
'a Christian prophet'. So clearly there is a basic continuity and family
resemblance between the OT and NT prophets; the main distinction being,
of course, that the later are 'slaves of Christ' rather than 'slaves of
Yahweh'. But when you say that the NT meaning of 'prophet' is different
from the OT meaning of 'prophet', I'm guessing that you mean something
other than this. Could you perhaps clarify this point?
.
Although the
Book of Revelation speaks of 12 apostles, the other NT documents show that
there were others (including Paulos and Silvanus). To arbitrarily restrict
the number to only twelve is therefore not justified historically. In point
of fact, the Christian prophetic tradition begins with John the Baptist
and Jesus of Nazareth, and continues from there all the way up to the present
day. Christian prophets have been active in every generation, and especially
so during the Reformation period.
.
On a different
note, take a close look at this bible-byte:
.
Then some
of the Pharisees began to say, "This man is not from God,
because he does
not observe the Sabbath." But others said, "How can
a man who is a sinner
perform such miraculous signs?" Thus there was
a division among
them. So again they asked the man who used to be
blind, "What do
you say about him, since he caused you to see?" "He
is a prophet," the
man replied. -- John 9:16-17/NETbible
.
Here's a trick
question for you:
Was the former blind
man wrong in his reply?
.
- one who agrees with john's blind man - textman ;>
x
textman
*