Text and Tradition

Originally posted by ahosyney
This man is one of the greatest scholars in Islam. He has a lot of Books. I wish his work is translated to English but I don't think so, I will do some search. All I can do for now I can give you an arabic link of his book translated by Google. I will try to do translation myself when there is a time. It is interesting that you find answers to many question ...[text shortened]...

I hope I have time to learn either of them to be able to make a better study of the Bible.

Thanks for the site: I'll look at it tomorrow (too tired tonight).

One of these days, if I'm feeling really brave, maybe I'll try to learn some Arabic! Apparently it works the same way--based on consonant roots--that Hebrew does; and I know just a bit of Hebrew. It's the Arabic script that intimidates me!

I would like to read some more Islamic philosophy. I am sure what I've read so far has been at a very low level. I have read in Islam mostly as part of studying Sufism, since I am a non-dualist. That means that I see the ultimate reality as something like an ocean from which my existence arises (like a wave), of which my existence is, and to which it returns...

______________________________

I appreciate our conversations on here, and the fact that you do not take umbrage when I argue with you even though I am an "outsider" when it comes to Islam...

EDIT: I have read a bit by a Western Sufi named Neil Douglas-Klotz. His hypothesis is that the gospels were probably originally written in Aramaic, which is the language he has studied. He says that many of the meanings are significantly different in Aramaic than they turn out to be in Greek. Just remembered that...

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks for the site: I'll look at it tomorrow (too tired tonight).

One of these days, if I'm feeling really brave, maybe I'll try to learn some Arabic! Apparently it works the same way--based on consonant roots--that Hebrew does; and I know just a bit of Hebrew. It's the Arabic script that intimidates me!

I would like to read some more Islamic phil ke umbrage when I argue with you even though I am an "outsider" when it comes to Islam...

Thanks for the site: I'll look at it tomorrow (too tired tonight).
Don't mention it, I did nothing yet. I will try to do some translation for his work I think it is important.


One of these days, if I'm feeling really brave, maybe I'll try to learn some Arabic! Apparently it works the same way--based on consonant roots--that Hebrew does; and I know just a bit of Hebrew. It's the Arabic script that intimidates me!

I don't know Hebrew , I know it is like Arabic based on roots. But I don't know if Hebrew will help you in learning Arabic. I can help if you want. I will be happy to do so.

I would like to read some more Islamic philosophy. I am sure what I've read so far has been at a very low level. I have read in Islam mostly as part of studying Sufism, since I am a non-dualist.

I read some during my study in High school. And then I started reading again after I graduated from the university. There so much to read. I don't know if you know but the Majority of Muslims are not Sufism or anything else. Actually they don't know all these names. Sufism and other sects started to appear as a result from the interference from Greek pholosophy and others. This happens because of the wide spread of Islam in and the active translation of books in those days. Ibn Taymeya tried to clear the Islamic pholosphy from other types of pholosiphies and that cause him problems with different groups.

Any way I took the thread out of its context (It is some how related) I'm sorry for that. I'm happy too to have conversation with you.

Edit: sorry for my bad English, I'm writing very quickly and I'm a little bit sleepy 🙂

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Thanks for the site: I'll look at it tomorrow (too tired tonight).
Don't mention it, I did nothing yet. I will try to do some translation for his work I think it is important.


One of these days, if I'm feeling really brave, maybe I'll try to learn some Arabic! Apparently it works the same way--based on consonant roots--that Hebrew does; a ...[text shortened]... sorry for my bad English, I'm writing very quickly and I'm a little bit sleepy 🙂

I'm sleepy too--and headed for bed.

Good-night. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t have any background either, Kirk. I just work at it for myself, now that I have the time. (You have no idea how hard it is, how many tools I use, and how long it takes me to do some of that stuff....)

And I should say that I don’t think any fluency in Hebrew or Greek is necessary—as long as the real message (and sometimes multiple messages) tha ...[text shortened]... the "word."

Wisdom that is, I believe... I need to chew on that awhile. Thank you.[/b]

When I was at a young age, probably before 10, I had an awareness that God had cursed me with the ability to be see things that others could not see, mainly incongruent or crazy behavior. I did not fit in and grew up being a loner. While this may be seen as a "blessing", for me it may have been on some level, but it gives you an identity of pain which to me is the sole requirement of being a minister.

I learned not to be a biblical literalist from those that espouse it. Because I grew up with a lot of pain, I learned that relationships were the only thing that mattered. I typically found those in therapy. That was just a living "word made flesh" experience. Have I ever been accused of being a heretic? How did you miss that in the forums? 🙂

If you want a little insight into my youth, check out a movie called "Harold and Maude". HE is sent to a psychiatrist, a priest, and his war general uncle who all fail to help him. He's a mess, but his salvation came in the most unusual of ways.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you. I grew up and spent much of my adult life in a denomination that claimed sola scriptura—the Lutheran church.

I find it ironic that your Lutheran church claimed to be a sola scriptura
institution when, nowhere in the Lutheran church denominations in
America do they have an official list of what Scripture is. The
Roman, Episcopal, even Presbyterian churches have a clear deliniation
of what constitutes Scripture (what books and so forth), but the Lutherans
haven't even done that (Rev. Pfatteicher who was on the committee
for the formation of the LBW was the one who pointed this out to me).

The contents of Scripture for the Lutherans is a tacit agreement, not
something officially pronounced.

Also interesting is the appointments in the RCL which have selections
from the so-called apocrypha with options to use other readings in their
place (like the ECUSA).

Indeed, the idea that the Bible can interpret itself presupposes the
existence of a canon, something which post-dates the Bible by over
two hundred years (with some books like the pseudonominous Petrine
epistles and Revelation as having later dates of canonization).

Sola Scriptura is founded on a Bible which derives from (at earliest) the
second century (and, for most Protestants, was 'revised' in the 16th
century).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I find it ironic that your Lutheran church claimed to be a sola scriptura
institution when, nowhere in the Lutheran church denominations in
America do they have an official list of what Scripture is. The
Roman, Episcopal, even Presbyterian churches have a clear deliniation
of what constitutes Scripture (what books and so forth), but the Luthera ...[text shortened]...
second century (and, for most Protestants, was 'revised' in the 16th
century).

Nemesio

Again, I don't disagree.

There is a certain false presupposition involved in some of this hermeneutic inquiry; namely, that no interpretation can be authorized, therefore the bible is essentially obsolete. A convenient 'way out' for anyone unwilling to submit to bible claims which are in no way clouded by translation. If you hold a world-view contrary to the bible's world-view, why not simply reject the bible? Why cultivate an air of uncertainty regarding its authority or reliability? The only reason I can think of is that you are threatened by its absolute pronouncements, and you seek solace in obscurity.

"For the time is coming when people will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching for something pleasing and gratifying, they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold" (2 Timothy 4:3).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
There is a certain false presupposition involved in some of this hermeneutic inquiry; namely, that no interpretation can be authorized, therefore the bible is essentially obsolete. A convenient 'way out' for anyone unwilling to submit to bible claims which are in no way clouded by translation. If you hold a world-view contrary to the bible's world-view er, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold" (2 Timothy 4:3).

How do you know if you hold a "world view contrary to the Bible's world view" unless you believe the Bible makes "absolute pronouncements" to begin with? Your argument is circular.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
There is a certain false presupposition involved in some of this hermeneutic inquiry; namely, that no interpretation can be authorized, therefore the bible is essentially obsolete. A convenient 'way out' for anyone unwilling to submit to bible claims which are in no way clouded by translation. If you hold a world-view contrary to the bible's world-view ...[text shortened]... er, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold" (2 Timothy 4:3).

I don’t think that either obsolescence or obscurity is the issue here. No one reads the texts without some hermeneutical lens. To treat the whole collection as some kind of seamless single book is an a priori hermeneutical decision, for example. To assume that it is all the self-authenticating “word of God” is another, requiring a particular understanding of divine inspiration. To read it mostly from a literalistic/historicistic perspective is another (not that there is no history there).

These three assumptions could be taken separately, or rolled into one. It appears, based on my readings in church history, that none of these assumptions were commonly held by anybody, from the first century until probably sometime in the 16th. Thus, if one dismisses the understandings and interpretations of early Christians based on such a sola scriptura “Biblicism,” one is doing so from a rather late doctrinal perspective. It almost amounts to saying that there was no real Christianity from the time of the writing of the final NT book until the 16th century! (As Nemesio alluded to, I think, that would include those Christians who debated and decided what the canon itself would include.)

With regard to authority, this seems to me to be a difficult matter. Some people might say that they give a certain church the doctrinal authority to interpret for them—but then I have to ask on what authority they made they decision. If someone says the Bible is their authority, then I ask the same question. At bottom, we all make such decisions based on our own authority; that seems to me to be patently inescapable.

As you have noted before, people make all sorts of claims, like, say, “I have the Holy Spirit, so I know I read the texts correctly.” Someone else makes the same claim—and then they argue about how to read the texts, sometimes saying something to the other person like, “Obviously you don’t have the Spirit.”

I sometimes think that both strict sola scriptura inerrantists and strict traditionalists are seeking a kind of riskless faith—which to me is a contradiction in terms. I can adopt a stance of radical existential trust and confidence, which is what religious faith really is, without asserting any certainty about my beliefs.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How do you know if you hold a "world view contrary to the Bible's world view" unless you believe the Bible makes "absolute pronouncements" to begin with? Your argument is circular.

Whether or not you believe they are true is another matter, but the bible does in fact make absolute pronouncements. Why don't you read it and see for yourself?

I suppose someone will be asking me to come up with some examples now. 🙂 My advice: don't strain too hard while you're using the letter to kill the Spirit.

The whole bottom-line of my inquiry here might be about reading the texts in such a way that they suffocate rather than nurture; or hem one’s faith in rather than allowing it to open out to possibility. Part of a risky faith is perhaps trusting toward possibility in the face of uncertainty, and even the ultimately unknown—again, more of an existential attitude than adherence to a body of doctrine. Faith always implies openness to me, not closure.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t think that either obsolescence or obscurity is the issue here. No one reads the texts without some hermeneutical lens. To treat the whole collection as some kind of seamless single book is an a priori hermeneutical decision, for example. To assume that it is all the self-authenticating “word of God” is another, requiring a particular under ...[text shortened]... ence, which is what religious faith really is, without asserting any certainty about my beliefs.

Yes, I imagine authority is a difficult matter for you. In all these spheres you are seeking to undermine it. Without mentioning the Spirit, I say: if you don't know God's authority, then you don't know God. God is not the author of confusion. God is light and Truth. How can the Truth, as found in God's word, 'set you free' if it carries no power or authority? God is who gives the word its authority.

Riskless faith? It depends on what kind of risk you're talking about. If by risk one is referring to the risk of humiliation or persecution because of standing for the Truth, then yes, faith is risky. Only someone who doesn't know the Lord's authority, that is, the Lord Himself, would call his faith 'risky'. If you cannot assert any certainty about your beliefs, then I doubt you have any kind of faith at all. Not in yourself, or God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Whether or not you believe they are true is another matter, but the bible does in fact make absolute pronouncements. Why don't you read it and see for yourself?

I suppose someone will be asking me to come up with some examples now. 🙂 My advice: don't strain too hard while you're using the letter to kill the Spirit.

Another arrogant loudmouth "Christian". I've read the Bible and it gives little support to the views of Fundamentalists like yourself by ANY reasonable interpretation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Another arrogant loudmouth "Christian".

Says the crown prince of vitriolic asinine verbal jerking.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Another arrogant loudmouth "Christian". I've read the Bible and it gives little support to the views of Fundamentalists like yourself by ANY reasonable interpretation.

OK, sir, disprove with the bible the 'fundamental views' I hold.

How does my challenge of your positions make me arrogant or loudmouthed? 🙂

Just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I have to be nice. Especially when God's word is being minced.