|
Hi, I'm new here. Thought I'd jump in as the topic has elements of interest to me.
peh's original post raises a question in my mind: what are the proper standards for establishing the truth of an interpretation?
Take the Isa 28:13 quote, for one example. peh appears to agree with the MH interpretation...but is this agreement adequate to invalidate the interpretation of those who see a positive message in the passage? Don't know if anyone in this thread has studied the nature of truth, but it is actually a very slippery, elusive thing. It's hard to pin down. This is not to say that truth is not based on absolutes, I believe it is. And truth can certainly be an objectively apprehended set of standards that are able to secure a clear consensus, as in the agreement that freedom is a good which ought to be sought by all whenever possible.
But what actual test do we have of declaring with any kind of certainty that one man's interpretation is more or less legitimate than another's?
Second example, the "lion shall lay down with the lamb" thing. I used to attend a church in which the pastor once told me that he cringed when anyone messed up a quote like this. He went so far, as I recall, as to suggest that the one who make mistakes like this was sloppy in their theology, and his teaching was to be mistrusted if he could not recite the Bible verbatim from the pulpit.
This raises the question: what is more important, the words that project the idea or the idea behind them?
Does swapping "lion" for "wolf" actually lessen the truth of the passage in any significant way?
|
Show Posts
