Interpretation of Texts (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, September 23, 2010, 14:36 (5173 days ago) @ dhw

I suppose what I'm really doing here is continuing my response to your statement that the Bible "is clearly not a book to be interpreted literally". Of course I agree, but now you say: "I am not claiming it is all true", which suggests you are claiming that some of it is true. And no doubt some of it is. But who decides? The meaning of the text depends ultimately on the interpreter.-In science, we would say that the measure of a theories validity is in its ability to predict the events of the past, present, and future that correspond with the observed data. (feel free to refine that as you see fit.) What I am doing is holding the Bible to the same rigorous standards that we hold science to. Namely, the measure of the Bible's validity is in its ability to predict the events of the past, present, and future that correspond with the observed data. -Computer models have shown that the parting of the Red Sea could happen as described. Supposedly, evidence has been found of chariot wheels and horse fossils on the sea bed from the right time period, though this is still under investigation pending cooperation from the regional governments.-Some very strong correlations have been found between different prophecies and actual recorded history. (Google the Prophecies of Daniel) Others bear an extremely strong resemblance to modern times(though, admittedly, they could well refer to anything as long as the data fit). Historical records have proved nearly all the mundane occurances listed in the bible, and now some of the more fantasic events are proving to be at least possible. These things are not a matter of interpretation, but archealogical fact. The miracles and such are harder to prove, but some of them are so fantastic that they would have had to have left some archaelogical evidence. That is what I am doing now. Seeing if the evidence fits the theory.-As to stoning your son, well, the ommissions do make a difference.-21:20 They must declare to the elders38 of his city, "Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say ... he is a glutton and drunkard." -One, notice that this is not a child of young age. This is talking about someone who is older, and given over to excess. Here it uses excessive eating and drinking, but as opposed to modern times, it could easily be excessive drug use, alcoholism, etc. Also, notice that it didn't say, don't try to help him, don't warn him, etc. The words stubborn and rebellious are a clear indication that the person clearly refused the help that was offered. So they weren't sympathetic to drunks and such. It is a mistake to try and twist the versus into indicating young children. In ancient Isreal, a person wasn't considered an adult until age 30.