Interpretation of Texts (General)

by dhw, Friday, September 24, 2010, 08:02 (4986 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

BALANCE_MAINTAINED: 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.-I fear I'm trying your patience, and since I greatly admire any enterprise like yours, I hesitate to continue the discussion. However, I don't think you've quite understood the point I'm trying to make. Maybe some of the mundane occurrences did happen, and maybe some of the more fantastic ones too, but the Bible's slant on them is each writer's version of those events. Let's say there was a great flood. Does that mean you have to believe the narrator's story of Noah and his animals in the ark, and the intimacies of the dialogue between God and Noah? How did the narrator know all this? I've drawn a parallel between Troy and your biblical sites, and Homer's gods and the God of the Bible. The historical events (Trojan War, Flood) may have happened, but the poet embellishes and fictionalizes at will, especially if the events themselves have been relayed from long ago via generations. Many of the tales told by the Greeks and Romans about their gods may well have sprung from real events in Nature, turned into symbols. Most religions will offer you such accounts, plus their interpretation of them in terms of the gods they believe in. Every story-teller is a subjective human, and in the context of religion he will certainly have his own agenda.
 
BALANCE_MAINTAINED: 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.-Unfortunately by focusing on the omissions and looking for some underhand motive on my part, you have again missed my point. I did not say the text dealt with young children. The omissions were for brevity, because the message that appals me is that a stubborn rebellious son (glutton, drunkard or even drug addict) should be stoned to death by the elders. I didn't think you would approve (cf. the international outcry against the proposed stoning of an Iranian woman for adultery), but it appears that you do, so long as the son is an adult! Deuteronomy is full of such barbarism (see Matt's post too). Anyone who tries to make a Jew worship a different God should also be stoned to death. Although some orthodox Jews go into mourning if someone leaves the faith, they do not stone them to death. And so apparently they are disobeying the Lord. If all scriptures are supposed to be "inspired of God and beneficial", who decides which bits are not inspired by God and are not beneficial? Again my point is that the teachings, just like the stories, are written by men and interpreted by men. For all the good things that have come out of religion, untold damage has been done by those who claim that the Bible (ditto the Koran) is the Word of God, and only their interpretation of it is correct.