Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a fallacy called the hermeneutic circle. "Let scripture interpret scripture" is shorthand for "I'm going to be dogmatic about this one doctrine and reinterpret other scriptures so they fit it." You will always have to pick which scripture is going to be the reference point and which scriptures will have to be reinterpreted to match the reference point. That's the fallacy.
It's not the bias of pagan belief, it's the context of ancient Israelite literature, language, and culture.
But can you show that the scriptures that do this denouncing are from the same time period, or are you just assuming that if one scripture from within the thousand years of Hebrew Bible composition denounces something, all the other scriptures agree? That's called univocality, and you have to show it exists. You can't just presuppose it.
No, it's not obvious at all. It's only obvious if you start with the presupposition that that's the case. That's called begging the question. Another fallacy.
Nope. The gods of the nations were considered the ultimate arbiters of cosmic order in the ancient Near East. The breakdown of justice could be blamed on the gods just as much as on any humans. Why do you think the psalmist so frequently called upon YHWH to execute justice, to save the underprivileged, and to punish wrongdoers?
No, it's not a coincidence. The commandments passed along to the Israelites were the qualities they asserted their God displayed. How many times does the Old Testament insist that judgment is God's? How many times does it insist that God is not a "respecter of persons" (doesn't show partiality)? See Ps 72:2–4:
2 Chr 19:7: Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed what you do, for there is no perversion of justice with the LORD our God, or partiality, or taking bribes
Job 34:17–19: Shall one who hates justice govern? Will you condemn him who is righteous and mighty, who says to a king, 'Worthless one,' and to nobles, 'Wicked man'; who shows no partiality to princes, nor regards the rich more than the poor, for they are all the work of his hands?
It also applies to God himself. Not a coincidence, you just need to know your Bible better.
And God had the same responsibility, as did the gods of the other nations. That alone does absolutely nothing whatsoever to show Psalm 82 is about human judges. The fact that psalm contrasts the immortality of the subjects with the mortality of humanity absolutely precludes the psalm's reference to humans. You are free to keep trying to show otherwise, but this is a case you cannot make convincingly. You can only put your naivety on display.
But the entire notion of Israelite judges ruling from an exalted position is artificial. It is invented exclusively and specifically to give a reason for not reading these texts as references to gods. There is no evidence for it anywhere outside of texts that mention "gods" that people don't want to read as references to gods.
Yes, it lets you assert your dogma without evidence. You just have to come up with ways to leverage other scriptures against the ones you don't like.
Or so you assume. Analogy does not mean genealogy, though. Often it's not borrowing so much as mutual drawing from the same broader cultural matrix.
As did Israelites. In fact, Exod 22:29 actually commands Israel to offer up their firstborn children as burnt offerings, as they do with their oxen and sheep. This was the situation when Ezekiel commented that YHWH gave the Israelites bad commandments that caused them to sacrifice their own children (Ezek 20:25–26). An entirely different generation had to make up the notion of redemption as found in Exod 13:13; 34:20. Ezekiel was not aware of those latter verses. He only had YHWH's commandment to sacrifice the firstborn before him. Jeremiah, on the other hand, rejects Ezekiel's reading. For him, the commandment to redeem had always been a part of it (Jer 19:5–6). The two are responding to completely different cultural norms from completely different time periods. Obviously neither the Bible nor ancient Israel were monolithic. For more, see Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice or Jon Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son.
Oh, really?
Israel had the exact same thing. Look at the original version of Deut 32:8–9. Elyon divides up the nations to his children, giving Israel to YHWH.
The evidence support this in Israel as well.
Oh, you mean like casting lots or having women drink potions made up of their claims not to have committed adultery?
You mean like when Saul visited a witch and she managed to conjure up the ghost of Samuel?
What do you think it meant when Abraham or Jacob erected a "stone"? You know the Hebrew is מצבה, right? You know that's what an idol was, right? Here's a photo of the holy of holies from the Israelite temple at Arad, which king Hezekiah managed before he hid it from the invading Sennacherib. You see the two altars and the two idols? You know why there are two of them, a little one and a big one? The little one is for YHWH's wife. We know it's Israelite because (1) it's from an Israelite town, (2) numerous letters were found in and around it referencing YHWH, Israel, and Levite priests, and (3) cultic instruments were found in the temple with writing on them specifying them as sanctified for Levite priests.
No, what you're reading are later texts written by Deuteronomistic and priestly authors and editors trying to centralize and restrict worship to a specific administration's own priesthood so that no one else would have the power and the money afforded by Israelite worship. That's why, for instance, you find no condemnation whatsoever of Asherah, other gods, other temples, or standing stones that predate the Deuteronomistic literature.
No, you're demonstrably wrong, you just don't seem to know enough about the Bible or the history to know it.
- I do not get that understanding, of Israel being commanded to offer up their firstborn; when I read those scriptures in Exodus and Ez.
The central idea is that revelation, inspiration and sensus divinitatis are innate knowledge similar in status to the logical and metaphysical axioms that form the framework for reason. ie. The view of faith as inherently reasonable or rational.
It's the reason we have observed a desecularisation trend in academia since the late 1960s, that no-one foresaw, and generally considered a very big deal indeed among theologians and philosophers of religion. Good luck refuting all the literature on it.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 10-03-2014 at 09:11 PM..
The central idea is that revelation, inspiration and sensus divinitatis are innate knowledge similar in status to the logical and metaphysical axioms that form the framework for reason. ie. The view of faith as inherently reasonable or rational.
It's the reason we have observed a desecularisation trend in academia since the late 1960s, that no-one foresaw, and generally considered a very big deal indeed among theologians and philosophers of religion. Good luck refuting all the literature on it.
When one has had a revelatory experience, he or she doesn't need to refute the foolishness of declared religion trying to prove God by reasoning.
Your Wikipedia reference gives credence that apologists were there right from the beginning of the rationalists rise. And they decided to fight on the enemy's ground rather than their own.
And the interesting thing about a revelatory experience is----I can't prove mine to anybody, anywhere, at anytime. But it's what shaped my life and what gives me confidence in my declining years.
When one has had a revelatory experience, he or she doesn't need to refute the foolishness of declared religion trying to prove God by reasoning.
Your Wikipedia reference gives credence that apologists were there right from the beginning of the rationalists rise. And they decided to fight on the enemy's ground rather than their own.
And the interesting thing about a revelatory experience is----I can't prove mine to anybody, anywhere, at anytime. But it's what shaped my life and what gives me confidence in my declining years.
Not only is your comment non sequitur, but it's demonstrably false:
1. In order for a revelation to be meaningful in the first instance, you need a foundation of knowledge of the identity of God. That requires identification and other decision-making.
2. Once one has had a revelation, the first thing that the mind does is verify and discern that it is not distractionary, deceptive or the result of a simple hallucination or dream.
The bolded terms all entail reasoning of some kind. Reason is necessary at every step of the way from faith to revelation.
Did I WRITE that inductive rationality is better than deduction. Deductive reasoning is the reasoning of the inerrantist who starts from a poor premise--that the written bible is correct literally, historically, and providentially. So it is certainly WORSE than inductive reasoning. And inductive reasoning can only happen AFTER faith is produced in the believer. I wrote that WALLACE claims inductive reasoning as superior to the inerrantist deductive reasoning.
Nonsense. Either you or wallace doesn't understand deduction. I can hazard a reasonable guess who's to blame.
Nonsense. Either you or wallace doesn't understand deduction. I can hazard a reasonable guess who's to blame.
Wallace defines induction and deduction a little differently to the formal logical definitions.
"Inductive" bibliology: Based upon a posteriori historical, exegetical and doctrinal evidence.
"Deductive" bibliology: Based upon a priori belief in Biblical inerrancy.
The central idea is that revelation, inspiration and sensus divinitatis are innate knowledge similar in status to the logical and metaphysical axioms that form the framework for reason. ie. The view of faith as inherently reasonable or rational.
It's the reason we have observed a desecularisation trend in academia since the late 1960s, that no-one foresaw, and generally considered a very big deal indeed among theologians and philosophers of religion. Good luck refuting all the literature on it.
If this is accurate how do you explain the fact that most people with a functional brain know axiomatic knowledge yet not everyone claims to know by intuition that God exists?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The orthodox view of the Trinity is that it represents three persons as one being, a concept that is difficult for the carnal mind to grasp - a concept that can only be conveyed through paradoxes such as John 1:1. If Christ had simply said that he was the Father, then you abrogate the personhood distinction between Father and Son.
- Do you believe the scripture: "IN the Beginning" ?
Or do you believe catholic doctrine: Before The Beginning and Forever More?
If this is accurate how do you explain the fact that most people with a functional brain know axiomatic knowledge yet not everyone claims to know by intuition that God exists?
Not only is your comment non sequitur, but it's demonstrably false:
1. In order for a revelation to be meaningful in the first instance, you need a foundation of knowledge of the identity of God. That requires identification and other decision-making.
2. Once one has had a revelation, the first thing that the mind does is verify and discern that it is not distractionary, deceptive or the result of a simple hallucination or dream.
The bolded terms all entail reasoning of some kind. Reason is necessary at every step of the way from faith to revelation.
But one must first have the revelatory experience--THEN can one use that as a basis for the steps of decision-making. It is not a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" proposition. Those who find "faith" by using reason, haven't found faith. Reason will not arrive at a revelatory experience.
I think perhaps you haven't experienced the latter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
