Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hermeneutics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Friday, October 24, 2014
A Puzzle About (Biblical) Interpretation
Context, context, context. It is said that to know the meaning of a verse in the Bible, one has to know the surrounding context. One has to know the meaning of the immediate context (the several verses before and after the one in question) and the broader context (e.g. the book it is written in, etc.)
How, then, does interpretation ever get started? For simplicity sake let's reduce the Bible to three books and each book to four verses (the numbers don't matter to see the puzzle--and let's suppose that each verse is a single sentence). Suppose we focus on the first book and verses 1, 2, 3, and 4 (which, we're supposing, are all of the verses). In order to understand the meaning of 1, we must understand the meaning of at least verse 2 (and perhaps verses 3 and 4). But to understand the meaning of 2, one must understand the meaning of at least 3 (and presumably 1 as well). But to understand the meaning of 3 we must understand 2 and 4. But to understand 4.... And thus we have a potentially vicious hermeneutical circle. It won't help to appeal to our understanding of books two and three since the same problem applies to each of the books as well. To understand the meaning of anything it seems that one must already understand the meaning of everything.
How, then, does interpretation ever get started? For simplicity sake let's reduce the Bible to three books and each book to four verses (the numbers don't matter to see the puzzle--and let's suppose that each verse is a single sentence). Suppose we focus on the first book and verses 1, 2, 3, and 4 (which, we're supposing, are all of the verses). In order to understand the meaning of 1, we must understand the meaning of at least verse 2 (and perhaps verses 3 and 4). But to understand the meaning of 2, one must understand the meaning of at least 3 (and presumably 1 as well). But to understand the meaning of 3 we must understand 2 and 4. But to understand 4.... And thus we have a potentially vicious hermeneutical circle. It won't help to appeal to our understanding of books two and three since the same problem applies to each of the books as well. To understand the meaning of anything it seems that one must already understand the meaning of everything.
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
David is God: Follow-up
An anonymous commenter asks what I think the upshot is from Dale Tuggy's recent post I put up on the blog. Instead of commenting back, I decided that this required a post of its own.
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
The Bible Teaches That David is God
This is clever and makes a nice point or two. (I might add, the Bible also teaches pacifism, annihilationism, Tuggy's-subordinationism, modern-egalitarianism, and many other trendyisms).
- When the prophet Isaiah says “Prepare the way of the Lord” (Isaiah 40:3) the “Lord” there is God, Yahweh.
- Mark applies this to Jesus; the “Lord” when he quotes Isaiah is Jesus. (Mark 1:3)
- Therefore, Jesus is God. (1,2)
The Bible holds many hidden wonders. In addition to its explicit teachings, by careful reasoning we can draw out many implications of what it says, by comparing various parts with others. Aided by various evangelical apologists and theologians, I’ve made a few discoveries which I am now privileged and humbled to share with the world.
Step 1: prove that Jesus is God
Step 2: prove that Jesus is David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

