FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-28-2001, 12:18 AM   #1
Quatermass
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 69
Post Extra-biblical data and Interpretation

Christians maintain wide ranging and differing interpretations of the bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith states that 'The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself.' However, a casual survey shows that Christians, in general, do not believe many stories, commands, doctrines, etc. in the bible. Examples are the creation account, working on the sabbath, women speaking in church, turning the other cheek, etc. I don't see any way a Christian could interpret using the bible alone and arrive at the conclusions of modern Christianity.

Thus my question: what is the role of extra-biblical data in biblical interpretation? And once you realize the extent that science, culture, morality, and other influences are used in interpretation, what authority does that leave?
Quatermass is offline  
Old 09-28-2001, 02:11 AM   #2
Bloop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 833
Post

At least the catholic church could go by what the pope says. If I remember correctly there was once an edict proclaimed by the pope (not this one, an earlier one) that stated that the pope was infallible in church matters. Let's just hope that he was infallible in stating that he was infallible and we should be Ok
Bloop is offline  
Old 09-28-2001, 06:31 AM   #3
critical thinking made ez
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX
Posts: 536
Post

Anyone claiming infallibility is enough to make the rest of the people want to crucify them or at least throw a stone toward their general direction. As soon as I pass my next stone it will be on the way.

This topic is fast becoming a topic for another forum. Let's see if someone can't convert this into an Existance of God Argument before it is sent into never-never land (Bible Crit).
critical thinking made ez is offline  
Old 09-28-2001, 11:05 AM   #4
Quatermass
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 69
Post

Then let's focus on the argument from the bible.

If the approach is to only interpret using the bible then biblical prophecies like Daniel or creation stories like Genesis can never be confirmed or denied. If you look to extra-biblical data then it appears that the bible is losing ground in the face of evidence. If I can accept scientific evidence to show that Genesis is mythical in nature and anthropological evidence to show that the doctrine of original sin is absurd, why not accept philosophical arguments as evidence of the non-existence of God?
Quatermass is offline  
Old 09-29-2001, 07:11 PM   #5
Deathscyth Hell
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Anderson, Indiana
Posts: 138
Post

Becuase you don't come to conclusions the same way in philosophy, science, and anthropology.

Could you tell me how Anthropology proved origional sin false plz?
Deathscyth Hell is offline  
Old 09-29-2001, 07:46 PM   #6
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Deathscyth Hell:
<STRONG>Becuase you don't come to conclusions the same way in philosophy, science, and anthropology.

Could you tell me how Anthropology proved origional sin false plz?</STRONG>
Anthropology has disproved Original Sin by showing that there never were an Adam and Eve who lived in the Garden of Eden some 6,000 years ago and were the parents of all mankind. Instead, anthropology shows that humans descended from other animals through a process of evolution by natural selection, and that 6,000 years ago humans were spread throughout the world.

Michael
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-29-2001, 09:59 PM   #7
Quatermass
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 69
Post

Davis Young states the problem well:
Quote:
A more serious problem is that Genesis 4 suggests that within a few generations of Adam, humanity had already developed an advanced culture – agriculture, the domestication of flocks, city building, metallurgy, and musical instruments. In contrast, the paleoanthropological and archeological records make it abundantly clear that humans were living all over the old world long before the development of agriculture. If Adam is the first human, then the Bible seems to leap right over untold generations!
Some theologians have suggested that somewhere in this long chain of ancient humanity God chose a single hominid, imbued him with a soul, and called him Adam. Such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the bible only. It is clearly an attempt to try to accept the weight of the evidence we have for the antiquity of man while trying to preserve the notion that a single man caused the ‘fall’ of the human race as the NT affirms. In reality ‘sin’ and death are parts of the nature of the world and have been here as long as life has. The doctrine of original sin seems absurd in light of this evidence.
Quatermass is offline  
Old 10-11-2001, 11:07 AM   #8
ohwilleke
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
Post

The bible refers to sources outside the Bible, why should the readers do otherwise?
ohwilleke is offline  
Old 10-11-2001, 12:37 PM   #9
brighid
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: somewhere in the known Universe
Posts: 6,993
Post

D'Hell -

“Becuase you don't come to conclusions the same way in philosophy, science, and anthropology.
Could you tell me how Anthropology proved origional sin false plz? “
Well, at least they use logic, experimentation and discernable evidence to determine what things are or are not, allowing for the possibility that future evidence may prove their findings incorrect, and searching for the most plausible explanation that can be determined. Unlike many religious people who use none of these critical thinking skills, disavow the use of logic as it is the "enemy of religion", are unmovable in their theories – or better known as “beliefs” and call any evidence that contradicts or disproves their “beliefs” as absolutely false of the work of their other deity – Satan.

Brighid
brighid is offline  
Old 10-11-2001, 01:39 PM   #10
Dolphin
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: England, University of Durham
Posts: 153
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by ohwilleke:
<STRONG>The bible refers to sources outside the Bible, why should the readers do otherwise?</STRONG>
Some people what to apply non-perfect stuff from outside the bible, like "when the Jews said this they meant this" sort of thing. They get this information from non-perfect sources and apply it to the bible and say that it is still perfect. How can you apply non-perfect information to interpretating something and still claim its perfect?
Dolphin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:34 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.