Originally posted by pritybetta Do you mean on here? I am not sure I am worthy of such a postion. I try and show people what the Word says and try not to read anything into it that would change it's true meaning. I did not mean to make you look bad or anything. Sorry if I did, or if I affended you. I never mean to do so, I just have very strong views when it comes the the Lord and his Word.
Have you ever read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling? If so, do you think that Kirk is doing anything substantially different than Kierkegaard's interpretative struggle with the story of Abraham and Isaac?
Originally posted by bbarr Have you ever read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling? If so, do you think that Kirk is doing anything substantially different than Kierkegaard's interpretative struggle with the story of Abraham and Isaac?
Originally posted by pritybetta No, I have not read it.
Of course, why would you have? Since Scripture wears its interpretation on its face; since it is so transparently understandable, what need is there to actively wrestle with it or search out alternative viewpoints? After all, you can tell at a glance whether some exegetical remarks are instances of "twisting" Scripture or whether they are faithful to it. It must be nice to be so confident.
Originally posted by bbarr Of course, why would you have? Since Scripture wears its interpretation on its face; since it is so transparently understandable, what need is there to actively wrestle with it or search out alternative viewpoints? After all, you can tell at a glance whether some exegetical remarks are instances of "twisting" Scripture or whether they are faithful to it. It must be nice to be so confident.
I never said that I do not actively wrestle with, or search out alternative viewpoints of scripture. Just because I have not read a book don't mean I don't. No one can understand the truth in scripture unless the Lord opens their understanding to it. That don't mean they can not seek other's veiws on it, nor does it mean they don't wrestle with it. But before they are to teach it as truth they need to make sure they are not reading anything into it that is not truly there. I also have problems with certain passages and I do not attempt to teach from them untill I have studied it for some time and came to a conclution that does not twist the true meaning of the scripture.
Originally posted by pritybetta I never said that I do not actively wrestle with, or search out alternative viewpoints of scripture. Just because I have not read a book don't mean I don't. No one can understand the truth in scripture unless the Lord opens their understanding to it. That don't mean they can not seek other's veiws on it, nor does it mean they don't wrestle with it. But be ...[text shortened]... r some time and came to a conclution that does not twist the true meaning of the scripture.
Oh, lucky for us that we have somebody here who has had their understanding of Scripture opened up by the Lord. Poor Kirk, I guess he is just muddling through Scripture, reading into it a bunch of nonsense. After all, his earnest attempts at deriving relevance and meaning from Scripture amount to little more than "twisting". Perhaps you could pray to the Lord that Kirk receives the same interpretive gifts He has so kindly bestowed upon you. But here's a question: How ought us poor unenlightened souls determine just who the Lord has bestowed this interpretive gift upon?
Originally posted by bbarr Oh, lucky for us that we have somebody here who has had their understanding of Scripture opened up by the Lord. Poor Kirk, I guess he is just muddling through Scripture, reading into it a bunch of nonsense. After all, his earnest attempts at deriving relevance and meaning from Scripture amount to little more than "twisting". Perhaps you could pray to the Lo ...[text shortened]... oor unenlightened souls determine just who the Lord has bestowed this interpretive gift upon?
Save your breath my friend, you are having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. I tried to explain to her more than once about exegesis, etc... and she just ignores whatever you have to say; and insists that she is the only one here with a clear understanding of God's word
Originally posted by bbarr Oh, lucky for us that we have somebody here who has had their understanding of Scripture opened up by the Lord. Poor Kirk, I guess he is just muddling through Scripture, reading into it a bunch of nonsense. After all, his earnest attempts at deriving relevance and meaning from Scripture amount to little more than "twisting". Perhaps you could pray to the Lo oor unenlightened souls determine just who the Lord has bestowed this interpretive gift upon?
Read the Bible and see if what I say, or anyone else for that matter, is in line with the Word. If not then let me know so that I can see for my self.
However, I think you are just trying to cause strife for me. I am sorry you feel that way. So for you and your attempts to degrade me, I will no loger respond to you untill you no longer have the underlining pun.
Originally posted by pritybetta Read the Bible and see if what I say, or anyone else for that matter, is in line with the Word. If not then let me know so that I can see for my self.
However, I think you are just trying to cause strife for me. I am sorry you feel that way. So for you and your attempts to degrade me, I will no loger respond to you untill you no longer have the underlining pun.
Well, you should tell him an "underlining gun" always trumps and "underlining pun."
Originally posted by duecer Save your breath my friend, you are having a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent. I tried to explain to her more than once about exegesis, etc... and she just ignores whatever you have to say; and insists that she is the only one here with a clear understanding of God's word
Who said I was unarmed? 😉
I never said I was the only one here wtih a clear understanding of God's word. You only think that because I was asking questions that you could not answer youself.
Originally posted by bbarr Of course, why would you have? Since Scripture wears its interpretation on its face; since it is so transparently understandable, what need is there to actively wrestle with it or search out alternative viewpoints? After all, you can tell at a glance whether some exegetical remarks are instances of "twisting" Scripture or whether they are faithful to it. It must be nice to be so confident.
Since Scripture wears its interpretation on its face; since it is so transparently understandable, what need is there to actively wrestle with it or search out alternative viewpoints?
Isn't prittybetta doing just that, offering an alternative viewpoint for you to search out? Such passion in defense of the possible profundity of the word of God strikes me as somewhat out of character for you, bbarr.
"I simply do not read the scriptural quotations you and others provide. I generally find them either banal or vicious, and the passages I do agree with I interpret radically different from the theist. I read your posts to find your arugments, not to have text of dubious worth regurgitated at me." ~ bbarr, Thread 83831, page 3.
Originally posted by epiphinehas [b]Since Scripture wears its interpretation on its face; since it is so transparently understandable, what need is there to actively wrestle with it or search out alternative viewpoints?
Isn't prittybetta doing just that, offering an alternative viewpoint for you to search out? Such passion in defense of the possible profundity of the word of God have text of dubious worth regurgitated at me." ~ bbarr, Thread 83831, page 3.[/b]
She is doing more than offering an alternative viewpoint, she is claiming her viewpoint is more faithful to Scripture and is such because she has an interpretive gift granted her from on high. It would have been something else entirely had she said "I have an alternate interpretation of the passage that I think speaks more clearly or urgently to our common spiritual concerns, that provides us with guidance or correction; that speaks to us and our humanity and reveals something about our place in the world and how we should navigate our world and our relationships to others." But that is not what she said.
What is possibly profound here is not the word of God, it is the viewpoint expressed by the person who uses Scripture as a medium. Texts do not interpret themselves. So, what common currency is available to us to discern the relative worth of different interpretations of texts? Presumably we read Scripture because we think there may be something there that can move us or speak to our deepest concerns about what we are and how we should live. It is these concerns that function as our common currency. This is why I take Kirk's exegeses seriously, and why I do not take seriously those who think that his exegeses are nothing more than the "twisting" of Scripture. We all read into Scripture our evaluative frameworks and normative commitments. There is no standpoint to interpret Scripture straight, so if Kirk twists Scripture, than we all do.
Originally posted by pritybetta Who said I was unarmed? 😉
I never said I was the only one here wtih a clear understanding of God's word. You only think that because I was asking questions that you could not answer youself.
I have answered them...you refuse to recognize the truth in my reponses. You believe what you believe, because its what you want to believe, not because its right.
Originally posted by bbarr She is doing more than offering an alternative viewpoint, she is claiming her viewpoint is more faithful to Scripture and is such because she has an interpretive gift granted her from on high. It would have been something else entirely had she said "I have an alternate interpretation of the passage that I think speaks more clearly or urgently to our common spi no standpoint to interpret Scripture straight, so if Kirk twists Scripture, than we all do.
I agree. I also think Kirk's exegesis was relevent, and his hermenuetics are relevant to his life experience. He has a good grasp of the topic. I liked the twist on Grace.
Originally posted by bbarr She is doing more than offering an alternative viewpoint, she is claiming her viewpoint is more faithful to Scripture and is such because she has an interpretive gift granted her from on high. It would have been something else entirely had she said "I have an alternate interpretation of the passage that I think speaks more clearly or urgently to our common spi ...[text shortened]... no standpoint to interpret Scripture straight, so if Kirk twists Scripture, than we all do.
There is no standpoint to interpret Scripture straight, so if Kirk twists Scripture, than we all do.
That's like saying that I have the right to interpret what Plato meant when he said, "wisdom is knowing you know nothing," as if he did not have a specific idea in mind. I may have my own clever idea about what he might have meant, but what of the author's original intent? Is the author's original intent only inconsequential in the Bible's case? If so, why?
Calling out Kirksey...
13 Jul '08 21:10
Back to Top