Dear Bruce >>My purpose in the thread was to address dogmatism itself, because it is one of the great barriers to clear-thinking discussion when brethren feel entitled to propound their own private interpretations with a big thus saith Yahweh! and dismiss contrary views as blasphemy. I found your post very fascinating at a number of levels. The above paragraph lays down your preferred platform which establishes the bible as a book of ambiguity, where each person is only capable of forming an uncertain, private interpretation because of said ambiguity. How can anyone be dogmatic about anything when at best we are feeling around in the dark grasping at the lofty mysteries of God, as revealed in his ambiguous word? >>I didnt see any direct connection with the evolution questions, and still dont. Both, or all three, valid readings of the verses are compatible with the rest of Scripture and with all views of origins that I know about. That others saw the OP as an argument and responded as they did was an unpleasant surprise. Bruce you do sound genuinely perplexed that a post on the apparent ambiguity of Genesis 1, in a forum on theistic evolution, has been interpreted as an attempt to introduce ambiguity so as to accommodate multiple interpretations, one of them being theistic evolution. I must confess that I am surprised that you are surprised at this. The fact that you are both perplexed and surprised at this reflects badly on us for failing to see the deeper, uncontroversial meaning behind your post. We really are such simple reactionary philistines. Please be patient with us, we know not what we do. >>So far as my original reaction to your post goes, I just thought that you had misunderstood the point of the reference to Jeremiah, so I repeated my main point, that the Genesis text is ambiguous. I wasnt trying to be ambiguous myself. I am absolutely certain that God had a definite meaning in mind when he inspired the saints of old to begin the entire Bible with this magnificent rhetorical text, in which every word is calculated, and I am sure that he had a definite meaning in mind with the very first word. So when you insist on ambiguity, it is because the introduction to the bible is so magnificent that its original divine meaning has been concealed from mortal understanding. God knew what He meant, but he is unable to communicate it effectively to those to whom He has revealed himself. So God manifestation means that God neither made himself comprehensible nor us capable of comprehending. So the default position, right from the first word of the Bible, is ambiguity and uncertainty. Great! >> [Edit: Part of] That meaning, as I suggested in the OP, is to encourage us to be humble when we read it and to have the right attitude to each other. Either reading is valid. So your sure that there is a definite meaning, but it is too magnificent to be comprehended and so the correct spirit is a humble submission to the validity of a multitude of interpretations, because the magnificence of the text renders the original, divine meaning so opaque, that all attempts to understand it, are but flawed, personal interpretations which amount to vague gropings in the dark. However in all the fog and ambiguity there is hope. Individuals whose qualifications and greatness can shed light on the divine ambiguities, hence the introduction of the great Rashi and friends who are the true lamps, who shine a light in the dark place, which is the word of God. >> We must understand that this is Gods, not ours, and for us even to part our lips to form the first vowel requires a reverent uncertainty. This is beautiful Bruce, so the uncertainty which allows ambiguity to thrive is not just a sign of humility it is also how we show reverence to our God. Uncertainty is the preferred state of mind which pays appropriate tribute to the greatness of His utterances. A confused, reverent uncertainty of divine utterances, meaning and intent. How on earth did Bro Thomas discover the truth with his flawed, personal, interpretations and proud, certain, uneducated, dogmatism? This is how the kind of hierarchical thinking which got TE and the Catholic Church going, gains a foothold. 1)Elevate the word of God to an incomprehensible level of ambiguity. 2) Create a default state of humble, confused uncertainty. 3) Elevate the views and opinions of experts like the great Rashi and friends to act as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path. 4) Then It naturally follows that those of our number who can quote and cite the likes of Rashi are at an advantage compared to those who can not. 5) So from a default position of ambiguity, uncertainty and flawed personal interpretations, the stage is now set for the kind of hierarchies we see in the Catholic Church and TE where he who can quote the most experts deserves the most credibility and authority. The winner of the TE hierarchy would have to be Jonathan Burke with his latest book. Jonathan is notorious for taking this hierarchy of yours to such an extreme he is on the record as saying. “I make no appeal to my personal interpretation of the Bible, or my own intelligence. Instead I refer to the relevant scholarly literature and consult academic consensus. People who fail to do this have no credibility.” Is this the kind of disciple that Christ was trying to create? Is this the path we must needs follow to credibly preach, establish and defend truth? One thing is for certain, you cant accuse him of not following your OP. This is where all of this humble, reverent, uncertainty and textual ambiguity leads us. A slavish devotion to the whims and opinions of scholars and experts who are, themselves, completely in the dark about the Truth, if I may be so dogmatic in calling it the Truth. Jonathans book reads like a scholarly google search, each question triggers reams and reams of quotes and references from various scholars and qualified experts. Jonathan, consistent with his stated OP, offers very little of his own exposition, his role in the book is that of a conduit, for the vast array of experts that are now needed to authenticate and defend our faith and drag us back from the edge of atheism. The vast bulk of the material on each page is references, most pages have a paragraph or two followed by references, some pages only have 5 words, the rest of the page being devoted to references. There is a 100 plus page bibliography. The book reads like a search engine and has about as much humanity, heart, soul, inspiration as a search engine too. In 600 odd pages, only about 150 would contain the actual words of the author, the rest is references. A person I know who is a devoted admirer of Jonathan said that the copious references were a little like a “take that, Jonathan style”. He said it in a reverential manner, he was obviously highly impressed. This in his mind, was clearly something to aspire to. This was the way truth was established and defended, he could not attain to such lofty heights, but he was certainly striving for that high and holy calling. I found myself feeling very depressed, that there is a generation of impressionable people who feel that our truths are so far out of reach, that we need to validate and authenticate them with the very same people, who have confounded Gods simple truths for everyone in the first place. We started with Christ leading a band of fishermen, truths that were revealed to babes and concealed from the wise and prudent. What happened to not may wise, not many noble? Is the gospel really preached to the poor? Is the Bible really able to make the simple wise? Is it really a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, or is it so ambiguous and confusing, that the best we can do is grope around in a state of humble, reverential uncertainty, scratching our heads at the ambiguity of this lofty and incomprehensible message, looking unto Rashi and co, the author and finishers or our faith. Something is very badly wrong, somehow we got our priorities completely skewed, suddenly we are facing a determined and concerted attack by those who think that reverential uncertainty and biblical ambiguity are virtues to be aspired to. If you honestly feel that the Bibles message is ambiguous or concealed. Christ explains why you are in this position, but the rest of us dont have this problem, our community is what it is for precisely the opposite reason. Bro Thomas wrestled the truth of the bible away from the theologians and the experts and delivered it to the common man. TE seem hell bent on returning us back to the fold. Your uncertainties are not our problem and to impose your uncertainty on our community as a thing of virtue, worship and principle is what led the ecclesia into apostasy in the first place. >>The text has meant many things to many people down the centuries; and we hope to meet them all and hear, respectfully, about their gleanings. So your vision of the kingdom will be something of a show and tell where all the people who have sliced and diced the bible will be given a platform to wax eloquent about their hypothesis to the thoughtful and dispassionate nods of their peers. One bible, one message, yet a humble ambiguity and contrite uncertainty, uniting us all in a respectful appreciation of a multitude of educated and diverse opinions. Im assuming the great Rashi will be there wowing us all with the brilliance that has so blinded him to the truth. I wonder if Bro Thomas will be there? I sincerely doubt it. People like him will only upset the lofty intellectualising with his narrow minded dogmatism, what, with his judging people and calling them blasphemers for merely contradicting his own flawed, personal interpretation of the text. No, I sincerely doubt John will be given a platform in that great and glorious day, nor Robert for that matter. You see Bruce, one thing that was glaringly absent in your vision was a single biblical quote validating your process of enlightenment, that of reverential uncertainty and humble submission to the ambiguity which is the word of God. The reason is very simple, Christ preached completely the opposite message, a message that was designed to be comprehended by the poor and the simple, a message that was, because of its simplicity, ambiguous, uncertain and confusing only to the great minds of the day. TE can only gain a foot hold if we accept the following premise. 1) The Bibles message is ambiguous 2) We are not capable of understanding it beyond flawed personal interpretations. 3) We should be reverentially uncertain and humbly accepting of diversity 4) Experts can shed light on confusion and lead us to enlightenment. 5) We should stand in awe of the experts and those who quote them. This is not how Christ preached his truths nor expected them to be comprehended, this is not the gospel of Paul who counted his credentials as a pile of dung. This is an alternate gospel, an alternate approach to Bible comprehension and Bible truth, an alternate process of authentication which was not taught by Christ, but the likes of Nicodemus before he saw the light. To the poor the Gospel is preached!
Posted on: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:18:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015