[Vision2020] In Defense of Phil Nisbet

[Donovan Arnold]

Andreas,

You wrote:

"Faith cannot be studied objectively (though, of
course, you can ask what people believe), but texts --
all texts -- most certainly can."

I agree. However, IMHO, the Bible loses 95% of its
value when it is not used as a basis of faith. I know
many people try to use the Bible as a source for
governmental structure, social engineering, science,
medical advice and history. However, I think using
"The Book" for those purposes is like using the Bible
as the user guide for my Olympus VN-480 Digital
Recorder.

The Bible, is meant to strengthen faith. To study it
in an academic fashion and claim a superior knowledge
of religion or the intended purpose of the Bible is
like reading Genesis and claiming a superior knowledge
of Anatomy and Geology.

The Bible can ONLY be properly comprehended with
faith. 

Donovan J Arnold  



--- Andreas Schou <ophite at gmail.com> wrote:

> Donovan --
> 
> Faith cannot be studied objectively (though, of
> course, you can ask what 
> people believe), but texts -- all texts -- most
> certainly can. The Talmud, 
> the core of Jewish theology, is itself the first
> systematic study of Hebrew 
> scripture. However, it takes a rather different
> approach to its study than 
> modern researchers.
> 
> Researchers with no interest in applying the Law
> have no interest in 
> producing a comprehensive "theory of G-d." The G-d
> expressed in scripture 
> can be nonsensical or nonexistent; it doesn't
> particularly matter to them, 
> because they aren't starting from the
> presuppositions that the God of the 
> Tanakh is good or just. In terms R. Hillel would
> understand, they're looking 
> for 'p'shat': the plain meaning of the text.
> Karaiite theology is as deadly 
> boring and illogical as it is unjust. So is
> Calvinism. Ralph is a 
> researcher, not a Jew. He doesn't have any stake of
> producing a Biblical 
> cosmology that makes a whit of sense, because he
> doesn't intend to apply it 
> to the real world.
> 
> Theoretically, I believe Ralph's correct: this is
> what most of the Tanakh -- 
> and I don't believe its authors consistently
> believed the same thing -- 
> says. Except for Elijah and Enoch.
> 
> When you are producing a theory of G-d -- which is
> not expressed in the 
> Tanakh, which lacks a figure like Paul, a theologian
> posing as a prophet -- 
> you have to consider other factors, like 'what makes
> sense', 'what works', 
> and 'what general ethical laws from outside the text
> can be brought into 
> play'. Did modern Jews, or even the authors of the
> Talmud, believe that it 
> was just to sell your daughter into slavery? For
> many of them, of course 
> not. To keep stupid, legalistic interpretations from
> coming into play, you 
> must bring logic to the text; you must start from
> the presupposition that 
> the Law is just, G-d is consistent, and G-d is good.
> To do this, later 
> Jewish authors brought remez (condensing a principle
> from several 
> statements), d'rash (assuming that God is intending
> to make sense), and sud 
> (creating a mystical interpretation for texts that
> seem to be incosistent 
> with the Law.) These produce a much richer, much
> more logical theology.
> 
> If G-d existds, and G-d is just, then this
> interpretation is true and Phil 
> is correct.
> 
> It all depends on the assuptions you start from and
> the interpretive tools 
> you're willing to use.
> 
> -- ACS
> >
_____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step
> Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
>  
>                http://www.fsr.net                   
>    
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com