Bible Hermeneutics

[forester]

---

[IdontCare]

try again imo man kaha ning bread n butter. Atong suwayan imong pagka SWETO.



PANAMINI DONG KUNG KINSAY NAGPASWETO-SWETO.
Ayaw nalang pabryt-bryt kay hibaw-an gihapon ka nga way kabangkaagan. Imong kalidad maoy mo-evaluate nako? hahahahahaaaa.. maypag molayat kas Manipis.

Matud pa nimo, "binuang sa philosophy", NAGPAILA KA LANG SA IMONG KA-IGNORANTE DONG. Ang filosofia lunsayng kinaadman kana, mga tawn way edukasyon ray moingon nga binuang kana. PAGHIKUG NALANG DONG OY KUNG INGON KANA ANA KA BOGO. Mura mag dili naka mapuslan sa katilingban.

Gitagaan kag reliable reference, di kasabut. Gisultihan nang ipapresentar ni JohnJan, imong gisalo bisan wa kinahanglana, unya wala rabay nasulti. Paenrol gyud sa grade two rong abli sa klase dong, ayaw kabalaka, ipa-akseleret ta lang nya ka kung may sulod na kanang utok mo, ok?

aw bryt diay ko kanusa kaha ko nag pa bryt bryt. bogo intawn ko oi nga guto lang makabalo kung unsa imong basehan nga nakasulti ka nga sayop ang mga PONTO nga gi raise up ni MILLER.

oi si NOY maestro, dili diay puede kami mo evaluate? naunsa naman ka oi, nawala naman ang imong pagka maestro, haahaha. wla diay na niumo tudloi imong mga estudyante nga mohatag ug kritiq sa mga sinulat sa obang mga gamhanan nga mga manunulat? tsk tsk. unsa diay ni imo dawat dayun too dayun sa mga gi pang sulat? osab na oi.


oi oi naay binoang ng philosophy. Ka dagahng estudyante nga inig homan sa klase, mo ingun nga daghang binoang anng philosophy oi. Hep hep hep wa ko ga ingun nga ang kinatibok-an sa filosopia kay binoang akong sulti Binoang sa filosopia. hehehe


mao lagi reliable reference pero akong gi pangayo kay ponto nangayo ko ug ponto sama sa gibuhat ni Johnjan bah. mao na akong gi pangayo.

pero cge na lang kay matud nimo di ko angay mag apil apil kay si Johnjan ra ang imong gi pangutana? Nya ikaw ra man kaha ang naay katungod mo hatag ug komento, cge mohilom na lang ko. Pero..ah unya na lang nako isulti kay mawala nya imong pagka maestro nako. Ako wala ra bha koy reputasyon. hehehehe.

[The_Child]

Now, now, gentlemen, stay cool. It's only hermeneutics; an interpretation of Hermeneutics.

Was it not Socrates who said: "One thing I know that I know nothing."

let's be open-minded and mmm... less hostile.


"Konsepto lang 'yan"

[geoseph]

Thanks IdontCare.

[forester]

My apology for the harsh language. Sometimes extraordinary measures are required for extraordinary circumstance. I'm always cool. Well, well, well, I sense the honorable intent of Idontcare, only that this subject is so complicated such that I really condemn the misuse of the concept. If only you knew the hardships and sufferings I had been into in the process of learning the subject "hermeneutica" in Latin and related languages, then presenting something like that one from Miller is really a BLASPHEMY to the dignified academic subject.

Please accept my apology Sir Idontcare; I will soon delete those offensive words of mine, just tell me which one is really injurious to your feelings.

[brownprose]

Let me get through one by one the method presented by the thread-starter.

RULE ONE: Work from the assumption that the Bible is authoritative.

This is one of the reasons why I don't ENTIRELY agree with the widely-held approach adopted by fundamentalists/literalist Christians such as the one presented by Miller.

This principle abruptly enforces the student of hermeneutics to assume the Bible's authority without question. So to speak, one is required to accept right away that the Bible is already in its "state of perfection" without even providing the chance for the person to investigate how/where it gets its perfection or authority.

Such tyranny and elitism, dispels or dampens initiative for critical thinking of a scholar/student to prove the authority of the Bible from sources outside the Bible. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a sound hermeneutics when one is told to accept a literature to be real or authoritative when one is arbitrarily forced to believe without establishing the reasons to believe it.

If I were to simply put it...the author wants you to read a comic book and tells you to believe that what is said there is true.


Rule II -- Sola Scriptura (Bible Interprets the Bible) to follow toms...busy pa. Again, I am not entirely sold out to this principle pa. Ugma nalang nako batbaton kay manginabuhi sa ko ...sensya na.

[forester]

That is a sound observation Brown.
The introductory portion in the study of hermeneutics is the primordial standard which says, "WHEN THE INTENT AND THE LETTERS ARE CLEAR IN ITS IMPORT, THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION".
If hermeneutics is a subject dealing with interpretation, and a literary piece is clear in its import; then, a literary piece does not need interpretation. If a literary piece does not need to be interpreted, then hermeneutics is not necessary.

[SPIKE_CSA]

That is a sound observation Brown.
The introductory portion in the study of hermeneutics is the primordial standard which says, "WHEN THE INTENT AND THE LETTERS ARE CLEAR IN ITS IMPORT, THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION".
If hermeneutics is a subject dealing with interpretation, and a literary piece is clear in its import; then, a literary piece does not need interpretation. If a literary piece does not need to be interpreted, then hermeneutics is not necessary.

I agree. HERMENEUTICS is not necessary.

[brownprose]

That is a sound observation Brown.
The introductory portion in the study of hermeneutics is the primordial standard which says, "WHEN THE INTENT AND THE LETTERS ARE CLEAR IN ITS IMPORT, THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION".
If hermeneutics is a subject dealing with interpretation, and a literary piece is clear in its import; then, a literary piece does not need interpretation. If a literary piece does not need to be interpreted, then hermeneutics is not necessary.

Both in form and substance...that is correct. When one piece of literature has already achieved its state of perfection why bother the hermeneutics?

Brilliant forester!

[The_Child]

That is a sound observation Brown.
The introductory portion in the study of hermeneutics is the primordial standard which says, "WHEN THE INTENT AND THE LETTERS ARE CLEAR IN ITS IMPORT, THERE IS NO MORE ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION".
If hermeneutics is a subject dealing with interpretation, and a literary piece is clear in its import; then, a literary piece does not need interpretation. If a literary piece does not need to be interpreted, then hermeneutics is not necessary.

Hermeneutics is an interesting subject, but I am not very familiar with it.

And Yes, I have a question for you guys, i wish to learn from your insights on this. Is hermeneutic left only to those which present themselves as the seemingly ambiguous?

Is it then that "Objective" texts do not require any hermeneutics at all?

And this is my biggest question, have you ever heard of the Sokal Affair in Postmodern literature when he wrote a hermeneutics on quantum gravity i think, i forgot the full title, which he later on considered as a hoax; so what then is its implications to hermeneutics placed into this situation? a situation which similar to what Baudrillard's terms as a Theory-Fiction.

And of course its derivative, what is objective and clear, and what is ambiguous? and again to my bias for postmodernism, is this not an avenue for deconstruction, this seemingly objective and clear in its import presents a closed-system no? and dont you think it is viable for deconstruction? and isnt deconstruction a hermeneutics?

I'm lost. Somebody help me find my way.

salamat daan.

cheers!!!