tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1039285444230731909..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Plain sense or just plain nonsense?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72877647652625562702012-05-27T09:47:28.138-04:002012-05-27T09:47:28.138-04:00zilch said:
"Are you saying that Ryken and L...zilch said:<br /><br />"Are you saying that Ryken and Long have the truth about what the Bible means, and that everyone else is wrong, rocking? You've just made my point."<br /><br />Don't be dense, zilch. <br /><br />1. Remember your original assertions (orphaned from reasoned argumentation) about how "it's far from obvious" to figure out when the Bible is meant to be taken literally vs. when it's not? How there are "degrees of literalness"? And how "the authors were not always clear in their own minds exactly what they meant"? Remember my response about how Triablogue has responded to such assertions in the past? Remember the examples I cited i.e. Ryken and Long?<br /><br />Now, did I cite Ryken and Long to indicate that only they "have the truth about what the Bible means" and "everyone else is wrong"? No. Rather I cited them as instances or examples of strings or terms you might use to search for Triablogue posts which respond to your assertions. I mentioned their names since they're scholars whose work is pertinent when discussing the topic of the literalness of the Bible, authorial intent, biblical genres, literary meaning, etc.<br /><br />Or to put it another way. Say Zac asserts such and such about string theory. However Rachel responds Blog of String has dealt with this before, which Zac can find if he searches for posts which include the names and books of people like Brian Greene or Ed Witten. Does this mean Rachel is suggesting only Greene or Witten "have the truth about what [string theory] means, and that everyone else is wrong"? No. At the moment they're mainly just search terms to get Zac to the relevant posts he needs to find on Blog of String for the relevant arguments. (Or if you demur from string theory then swap in Lee Smolin and Peter Woit for Greene and Witten.)<br /><br />2. Say Ryken and Long do have the most reasonable argument about "what the Bible means" while others have poorer arguments. There's nothing wrong with opting for the most reasonable argument. <br /><br />3. Say it's true that, excepting a couple of scholars like Ryken and Long, "everyone else is wrong" about what the Bible means. How does this make your point that "it's far from obvious" when to take the Bible literally, for example? It could still be very obvious when to take the Bible literally and when not to. It could still be only Ryken and Long see the obvious while everyone else can't grasp the obvious.<br /><br />4. In any case, you should actually offer a reasoned argument for your assertions. You should actually engage people's arguments or counter-arguments. Right now all you've done is make bald assertions.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81433856512648078432012-05-27T05:09:02.984-04:002012-05-27T05:09:02.984-04:00Are you saying that Ryken and Long have the truth ...Are you saying that Ryken and Long have the truth about what the Bible means, and that everyone else is wrong, rocking? You've just made my point.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10026874133277578432012-05-26T20:14:34.915-04:002012-05-26T20:14:34.915-04:00zilch said:
"Seriously- isn't it fairly ...zilch said:<br /><br />"Seriously- isn't it fairly obvious, even leaving aside questions of belief, that the authors of the Bible were not always literal? Unfortunately, it's far from obvious, as this post makes apparent, to decide what was meant to be taken literally and what was not. Imho, the problem is worse: it's often not merely a yes/no question of whether something was meant to be literal; there are degrees of literalness. I also suspect that the authors were not always clear in their own minds exactly what they meant."<br /><br />Steve and the other Tbloggers have covered this ground multiple times in the past. For instance, just Google Triablogue's site and look for books by the likes of Leland Ryken or V. Philips Long.rockingwithhawkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10550503108269371174noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53855275015746527372012-05-26T20:01:55.134-04:002012-05-26T20:01:55.134-04:00Wow, I've finally found out what kind of Chris...Wow, I've finally found out what kind of Christian I am- an <i>Errantist!</i> That's a relief...<br /><br />Seriously- isn't it fairly obvious, even leaving aside questions of belief, that the authors of the Bible were not always literal? Unfortunately, it's far from obvious, as this post makes apparent, to decide what was meant to be taken literally and what was not. Imho, the problem is worse: it's often not merely a yes/no question of whether something was meant to be literal; there are degrees of literalness. I also suspect that the authors were not always clear in their own minds exactly what they meant.<br /><br />In any case, that's one reason why Christians will never run out of stuff to debate about.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25927100464813199172012-05-24T09:25:24.477-04:002012-05-24T09:25:24.477-04:00I've already given detailed responses. To conn...I've already given detailed responses. To connect my method with "radical subjectivity" begs the question.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83266211924886701642012-05-24T07:51:50.448-04:002012-05-24T07:51:50.448-04:00Wow! That is not only oversimplistic, it is unnece...Wow! That is not only oversimplistic, it is unnecessarily harsh. After reading this post, I wonder if the word "literal" is even being used properly. I would contend that 1 Jn. 2:2 is taken literal by Calvinists and Arminians even though they draw opposite conclusions from the verse. To take a text at face value is not the equivalent of dismissing the context of Scripture and the ignoring the lexical work necessary for adequate understanding. I think Henebury has made some very good points that remain unanswered. Since hermeneutics is an area of serious interest for me, and since I am in agreement with Hayes on most things, I would like to see more direct interaction with Henebury's argument as well as some examples of how one avoids radical subjectivity in Hayes' method.Ed Dingesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05761345786829868810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18457968655887858762012-05-22T22:06:27.644-04:002012-05-22T22:06:27.644-04:00The Pharisees and Judaizers were strong proponents...The Pharisees and Judaizers were strong proponents of the "plain-sense, face-value, literal meaning of Scripture", and were the most dogged opponents of Paul and Jesus.Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.com