Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom

On May 20, 10:55 am, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 16, 10:51 pm, Harry K <turnkey4...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:







On May 16, 7:50 pm, Bill <brogers31...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 17, 8:31 am, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 14, 5:14 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 14, 9:03 am, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 13, 2:19 am, Bill <brogers31...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 Mei, 13:47, Suzanne <leila...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

To a large degree the debate is about whether or not the Bible can be
trusted.  Suzanne is therefore engaging in the logical fallacy called
“begging the question”.

Well, not exactly, but almost. You see, I gave my life to the Lord,
and
put my trust in him for salvation about the same time that I began to
learn to read. A child that makes that decison on his own still has to
grow up in this world, and he or she sees people struggling to
understand life and the Christian child goes through things himself
in order to learn.

.

One of the reasons you don't believe is probably
because of liberalism in some denominations of Christianity.

Change the "b" to a "t" and you might be right.

There are some things that need to be literal. Do you know what
"torah" means? It means "law," and therefore "instruction." For
instructions you
need literalism.

Law and legal interpretation is something every beginner in a law
degree is taught intensively (my students study it for one year, three
lectures a week) , and it is one of the disciplines that has developed
over centuries the most detailed theory of interpretation possible.
"Literal reading" is in the standard model just one amongst several
"canons" of interpretation, side by side the historical, the
teleological, the contextual, the audience oriented. etc 9up to 27,
depending on school and jurisdiction)
(Jonathon R. Macey & Geoffrey P.Miller, “The Canons of Statutory
Construction and Judicial Preferences,” 45
VAND.L.REV. 647, 647 (1992))

 Mastering the skill of legal interpretation is one of the reasons you
have to the a professional lawyer and give him huge amounts of money -
if it were just a question of reading a text, everybody could do it.
Unsurprisingly, entire books have been written just on the method of
appropriate legal interpretation.n the US e.g. the two volume
treatise:  Sutherland Statutes and Statutory Construction, currently
edited by  Norman J Singer, J.D. Shambie Singer, See e.g. Sinclair,
Michael, "Llewellyn's Dueling Canons, One to Seven: A Critique". New
York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006 for the different
methods used in legal interpretation, and how they can result in
conflicting interpretation s of the same text.

The standard example we give our students comes from H.L.A Hart, who
argued that every legal norm has a core meaning and then a penumbra of
doubt; His example: If the rule says: "no vehicles are permitted in
the park", are toy model vehicles banned? Wheelchairs? A disfunctional
tank for a veteran memorial? A remote controlled electric toy?

The text alone won't tell you, for this you need to interpret it in
its context, using additional information
(Hart, H. L. A. (1958). "Positivism and the Separation of Law and
Morals". Harvard Law Review 71 (4): 593–629)

You would not wa
nt someone to make you a meal
using vague recipe instructions.

I don't know what your recipe books say, but mien are full of vague
isntructions: "Take some flour" (how much?), cook for desired texture
(what?) etc etc.

Burkhard, thank you for explaining to me your perspective. You don't
have to go to that extent to understand the Bible. Children can
understand it. If you
don't understand something, you go to something that you can
understand.
The Holy Spirit helps someone to understand it. The things that I've
written
in the last few posts are crystal clear to most people. How is it that
you all
are so blindingly brilliant about some things, but can't grasp what
things I
have been saying? It's not that vague as "take some flour" as you
write
above.

OK...I see that you all will heckle me, and take a view against what I
say.
Or give me a hard time about my viewpoints. That is obvious. But, when
someone explains what someone says they don't get about the Bible in
here, why is it that the explanations are turned away? No one is
allowed
to be right, only the unbelievers. They say "we can't understand
this."
So people explain it and I've seen perfectly correct explanations get
turned away. The ones objecting to the explanations sound like they
just can't understand something but boy if an explanation is given
they
suddenly get so smart and know more, supposedly, than the person or
persons trying to explain the verses to them.

You are giving the impression with this post, that someone has to have
a law degree and then also take your classes for over a year, three
times
a week, in order to ever understand the words in the Bible. It just
isn't
so. So what are you saying all this for?

Suzanne

Burkhard is not heckling you. He is merely pointing out that what you
think of as "just reading what the Bible says, without interpretation"
is more complex than you seem to think. You yourself do not simply
read the text and understand it based on the simple dictionary meaning
of individual words. Your goal, as you yourself say, is to understand
the "original meaning." You do that by putting each individual verse
into context within the chapter and book in which it occurs, by
looking at other sections of the Bible, by applying what you know, or
think you know about the history of the period (e.g. the Eye of a
Needle market gate in Syria) or linguistics, to understand what is
written and to get back to "the original meaning."

Neither Burkhard nor I claim that there is anything at all wrong in
your doing that. Everybody does that whenever they read anything, even
a recipe or a law book. The only thing that strikes us as odd is your
intense resistance to calling what you are doing "interpretation," as
though interpretation were some tricky liberal way to "water down" the
Bible. Everybody has to interpret everything that they read. It is
absolutely unavoidable. And many people of good will may come to
different conclusions about what the "original meaning" of a text is,
whether that text is the Bible, a political essay, or the US
Constitution. What is slightly off putting, I must admit, is the
implication that you, Suzanne, read the text simply and get to its
original meaning easily, just like a child, with the help of the Holy
Spirit, while anyone who gets a different "original meaning" from the
text must be engaging in "interpretation."- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

were it not for "interpretation" there wouldn't be thousands of
different churches, sects, cults,  etc. all claiming to be "Christian"
and each and every one certain that they have the only _true_ meaning
of the bible.
..

Harry K

Harry, "interpretation," instead of seeking the true meaning of
"translation," is exactly why we have so many denominations.

Suzanne

Then you are very fortunate to belong to the one denomination that
seeks the true translated meaning instead of those mere
interpretations sought by all the other denominations.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Texas Polygamists--sf in real life?
    ... which hasn't been to the Supreme Court yet. ... That would be a clearly absurd interpretation of the law, ... meaning in order to avoid an absurd result. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... over centuries the most detailed theory of interpretation possible. ... York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006 for the different ... read the text and understand it based on the simple dictionary meaning ... different conclusions about what the "original meaning" of a text is, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... over centuries the most detailed theory of interpretation possible. ... So what are you saying all this for? ... read the text and understand it based on the simple dictionary meaning ... different conclusions about what the "original meaning" of a text is, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... over centuries the most detailed theory of interpretation possible. ... York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006 for the different ... So people explain it and I've seen perfectly correct explanations get ... different conclusions about what the "original meaning" of a text is, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: 9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom
    ... over centuries the most detailed theory of interpretation possible. ... York Law School Law Review, Vol. 51, Fall 2006 for the different ... So people explain it and I've seen perfectly correct explanations get ... different conclusions about what the "original meaning" of a text is, ...
    (talk.origins)