Questions for martinb59
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-04-2010, 06:03 PM
 
RE: Questions for martinb59
A double facepalm please?
[Image: doublefacepalmkzm.jpg]
I might come back to this later.. now I need to get back to my cosmology book.
Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2010, 07:33 PM
 
RE: Questions for martinb59
Actually, the correct terms are exegesis and eisegesis.

eis·e·ge·sis

an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

ex·e·ge·sis

critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

I think you have identified who is practicing exegesis and who is practicing eisegesis flipped around, martin. From everything I have seen from you (the misinterpretation of the 'beast' in the Book of Job, to the issue of how many gods were referenced in the Bible), it is you who is practicing eisegesis, simply because you are not critically interpreting it. You are taking what you read and applying your own bias, or the collective bias of all who don't actually analyze the bible's contents.

What I have presented, and what omega21 has presented, and what others have presented to date has been a critical explanation, in other words exegesis. We have taken the approach of taking the text of the bible and critically interpreting it. I say that because the focus of our interpretation is based on what the early tribes of Israel were faced with for their time.

It is historically known that the early Canaanites worshipped many gods (the list I provided earlier is what my research turned up). You cannot deny the archaeological evidence that proves this point. It was through the establishment of the Judaic religion that early religious leaders tried to focus belief on a single god. YHWH was one of many gods and, as I stated earlier, he won out only because people thought he was the most powerful...key point...they thought he was the most powerful, not that he was the ONLY one.

A perfect example of a law that mandated belief in one god is the first commandment. Before I looked into the historicity of the bible, I had thought what most atheists may have thought..."why would a god worry about people worshipping other gods when he is the only one"? Once I read and confirmed that early Canaan was polytheistic, then it made sense. It also made sense that early establishment of the Judaic religion would have pushed for a monotheistic focus...if you don't have any challenges for your established doctrine, it has a better chance of being followed by the masses.

This, in no way, validates the divinity of anything in the bible. It still speaks to bronze age people using god as a way to explain things around them that they didn't have any other explanation for...god of the gaps.

As for the quote from Genesis you provided, we can examine it using eisegesis and exegesis:

eisegesis: yes, god did create everything around us, so he's worthy of worship because of his power, etc. etc. Forget about how he does it, just believe in him, cause if you don't, you're headed for hell!

exegesis: early religious leaders needed a way to explain the world around them, so this was the best fit, for that time. In order to establish the authority of this god figure, a monotheistic approach would be best, since one god doing EVERYTHING was the ultimate god. Do away with the god of war, with the god of fertility, with the god of death. One stop shopping, that's our YHWH!

Now you know why I'm solid in my Atheism. I have utilized exegesis to interpret religion...it has nothing to do with my own personal bias or agenda...I have cemented my Atheism BECAUSE of exegesis, not the other way around.
Quote this message in a reply
21-04-2010, 08:36 PM
RE: Questions for martinb59
God shows us proof but we call it evolution? Are you serious? I don't know where to even start. There is so much I can say. For one you cannot believe in creationism and evolution at the same time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 02:19 PM
 
RE: Questions for martinb59
(21-04-2010 07:33 PM)supermanlives1973 Wrote:  Actually, the correct terms are exegesis and eisegesis.

eis·e·ge·sis

an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

ex·e·ge·sis

critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

I think you have identified who is practicing exegesis and who is practicing eisegesis flipped around, martin. From everything I have seen from you (the misinterpretation of the 'beast' in the Book of Job, to the issue of how many gods were referenced in the Bible), it is you who is practicing eisegesis, simply because you are not critically interpreting it. You are taking what you read and applying your own bias, or the collective bias of all who don't actually analyze the bible's contents.

What I have presented, and what omega21 has presented, and what others have presented to date has been a critical explanation, in other words exegesis. We have taken the approach of taking the text of the bible and critically interpreting it. I say that because the focus of our interpretation is based on what the early tribes of Israel were faced with for their time.

It is historically known that the early Canaanites worshipped many gods (the list I provided earlier is what my research turned up). You cannot deny the archaeological evidence that proves this point. It was through the establishment of the Judaic religion that early religious leaders tried to focus belief on a single god. YHWH was one of many gods and, as I stated earlier, he won out only because people thought he was the most powerful...key point...they thought he was the most powerful, not that he was the ONLY one.

A perfect example of a law that mandated belief in one god is the first commandment. Before I looked into the historicity of the bible, I had thought what most atheists may have thought..."why would a god worry about people worshipping other gods when he is the only one"? Once I read and confirmed that early Canaan was polytheistic, then it made sense. It also made sense that early establishment of the Judaic religion would have pushed for a monotheistic focus...if you don't have any challenges for your established doctrine, it has a better chance of being followed by the masses.

This, in no way, validates the divinity of anything in the bible. It still speaks to bronze age people using god as a way to explain things around them that they didn't have any other explanation for...god of the gaps.

As for the quote from Genesis you provided, we can examine it using eisegesis and exegesis:

eisegesis: yes, god did create everything around us, so he's worthy of worship because of his power, etc. etc. Forget about how he does it, just believe in him, cause if you don't, you're headed for hell!

exegesis: early religious leaders needed a way to explain the world around them, so this was the best fit, for that time. In order to establish the authority of this god figure, a monotheistic approach would be best, since one god doing EVERYTHING was the ultimate god. Do away with the god of war, with the god of fertility, with the god of death. One stop shopping, that's our YHWH!

Now you know why I'm solid in my Atheism. I have utilized exegesis to interpret religion...it has nothing to do with my own personal bias or agenda...I have cemented my Atheism BECAUSE of exegesis, not the other way around.
First of all if you were honest you never heard of those to words until I brought them up. Second, there are two spellings of that word and since those on this site would cringe if I brought up a theological definition, I got it from answers.com so bring it up with them. Fourth, according to answers.com "In the context of studying the Bible it means to get out of the text what the text is saying. This may include a number of things to aid the process such as reading the context in the chapter, in the particular book as a whole eg. Jeremiah or Matthew and even where it fits within the whole Bible. It may also include cultural awareness, the timing of the writing, and identifying the author and even the target audience." You did none of that. That you say you used and did use it are two different things. And you didn't use it.
Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 02:46 PM
RE: Questions for martinb59
(21-04-2010 04:31 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  God does show you proof you choose to call it evolution.

No.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 02:57 PM
 
RE: Questions for martinb59
(22-04-2010 02:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-04-2010 04:31 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  God does show you proof you choose to call it evolution.

No.

Well thought out and beautifully exposited!!!
Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 03:06 PM
RE: Questions for martinb59
(22-04-2010 02:57 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  
(22-04-2010 02:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-04-2010 04:31 PM)martinb59 Wrote:  God does show you proof you choose to call it evolution.

No.

Well thought out and beautifully exposited!!!

Thank you. I try.

Sarcastic comments aside, "No" is all that needs to be said. Statements made without justification can be dismissed without justification.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 03:08 PM
RE: Questions for martinb59
Yeah Evolution disaproves of God and creationism. The answer as to why is really simple, and unbeliever and I feel that it doesen't need to be discussed. Martinb you need to either fight evolution or join it. You cannot have both creationism and evolution. They just dont go together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 03:10 PM
RE: Questions for martinb59
(22-04-2010 03:08 PM)omega21 Wrote:  Yeah Evolution disaproves of God and creationism.

Meh. It disputes young-Earth creationism, certainly. But evolution being true does not mean that God does not exist. The two have very little to do with each other. It's only when certain religious sects decide that their god opposes evolution that the two get intertwined.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2010, 03:20 PM
RE: Questions for martinb59
True.I first learned about evolution when I was in elementary school, and yet I was a chrisitan until recently. Evolution does not really do much, but add the big bang theory then fundamentalist start getting angry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: