Joe Bloe

In the course of a thread on evolution, Adam_777 said of hermeneutics:

To which I responded:

and then

I am inviting Adam to this forum to defend his claim that hermeneutics is a science and to explain how we can confidently know that its theory, its fundamental assumption (biblical inerrancy), is true.

Take it away, Adam ...

Adam_777

Do the homework. Look up Walter Martin. He goes into a great explanation of how hermeneutics works. He authored the book “Kingdom of the Cults (or via: amazon.co.uk)”. He does an excellent job showing how common misinterpretations can be rectified by putting verses back into their context and not reading into it things that it doesn’t say.

I think he does the best job putting it on a layman’s level by drawing off of explanations of why Christian Cults are considered Cults to begin with, basically why scripture in it’s whole can not say what they extrapolate from certain verses.

I know this thread would digress into me trying to put out every little fire for why commonly thought contradictions are not contradictions. If you haven’t done it already watch Hovind’s seminar part 7. He does a good job showing why commonly thought contradictions aren’t contradictions at all.

Listen guys, it’s been fun but I do have a life to live outside of this computer. You’ve been great. We’ll have to agree to disagree agreeably. I enjoy debates but the level of hostility in these threads against Christians tells me that you really aren’t interested in my views but that you’re more interested in trying to make me look like a fool.

Well, have at…

Tear me up… I’ll check in after a couple of days to see how you really feel about Christians.

thentian

I was looking forward to read a discussion about hermeneutics.

I'm sure the moderators could have snipped away any posts with examples of contradicitons and sent them to the ongoing topic with that.

Joe Bloe

My question was not about specific alleged contradictions and attempts to rectify them. And my question had nothing to do with cults. My question is how do you know the foundational assumption of hermeneutics, "the theory is that the bible does not contradict itself because in its entirety it was inspired by one mind," is actually true. You claimed that hermeneutics is a science. But to be a scientific theory, a theory must be able to be falsified, i.e. there must be a way to determine that it is false if in fact it is false. If the theory is true, it won't be falsified; but it has to take the risk of being falsified, it has to say "if I do X and then Z happens instead of Y, then I was wrong about the theory and I have to revise or replace it." For evolution, there are many "Zs", such as a squirrel giving birth to a rabbit, or finding a rabbit fossil from the Precambrian era: if either of those were to happen, we would know that new species can arise by means other than evolution. What is the "Z" for hermeneutics? How can you justify saying it is a science? If there really were a contradiction in the Bible, how would you recognize it? Would you allow yourself to recognize it? If hermeneutics would not allow for the recognition of a contradiction if one is actually there, then it is not a science. If hermeneutics cannot recognize if it is wrong, how can you have confidence that its findings are right?

Does Walter Martin address that in his book? Does he say what the "Z" is for hermeneutics? If so, it shouldn't take too much time and effort for you to explain it here. If not, well, I'm not interested here in how one type of self-proclaimed Christian categorizes other types of self-proclaimed Christians as cultists, or how a particular inerrantist tries to reconcile specific alleged contradictions. I'm interested in hearing your answer to the question: what is the "Z" for hermeneutics?

Joe Bloe

Some here are hostile to Christians. Most, however, are hostile to what we see as bad or false or foolish arguments for theism of one sort or another. "Love the arguer but hate the argument." But I've often seen adherents to religions (most other sorts of views, too, but particularly religions) fail to make that distinction and to interpret attacks of their beliefs and arguments as attacks on them.

And even if some are hostile to you personally, please don't take that as an excuse to avoid dealing with the content of their arguments. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, you can't toss out or ignore an argument because the arguer is mean. Besides, it is usually precisely the repeated evasions of arguments that will lead to attacks on you (for repeatedly evading arguments) in addition to attacking your views. Here, for example, you completely evaded my question about what is the "Z" for hermeneutics, pointing me instead to a book that, according to your description, talks about cults and about how hermeneutics works to reconcile specific alleged contradictions. I'm not interested in how it works, I know how it claims to work; I'm interested in whether and how it could recognize if/when it doesn't work, which could give me confidence that the way it works really does work. How can hermeneutics know when it gets things right if it can't recognize if it gets things wrong? Evasion, repeating claims that have been disputed without addressing the disputation as if there were no dispute, that sort of thing can turn hostility to arguments into hostility to the arguer.

mens_sana

"Hermeneutics" is more commonly defined as the study of theories of interpretation.

As such, inerrancy is nothing more than A theory of interpretation. And it justifies itself as a comfortable, non-falsifiable a priori.

In other words, while defendable, it is indefensible using contemporary standards of investigation.

Adam_777

Give me a couple of days. I am think about your questions.

Adam_777

Just for starters here's a definition so you know up front that it is defined as a science:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hermeneutics

her·me·neu·tics - 1. the science of interpretation, esp. of the Scriptures.
2. the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.

Joe Bloe

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

Adam, are you still here? Are you still thinking about this? If so, I have a few suggestions as to ways to test its premises, theories, and methods. The problem is, it doesn't look to me like it passes the tests. But maybe some examples of possible "Zs" for hermeneutics will help you think of some it could pass.

badger3k

No replies yet?