Your track record says otherwise, Boaz.

>>I was hoping for some serious engagement from any who came to this thread.. on something as simple as 'interpreting' a single verse of scripture<<

What you were hoping for was to validate your own method of "interpretation", which you inevitably direct towards your preconditioning that the Qur'an is inherently evil.

This thread has nothing to do with understanding texts.

It has everything to do with furthering your agenda of channelling fear and loathing against Islam.

But, setting that aside for the moment, let's have a look at the fundamental fallacies inherent in your approach.

Discussing a paragraph of Darwin has advantages over discussing a paragraph from the New Testament.

For a start, there were many - very many, in fact, due to the nature of the material - third-party accounts of Darwin's work. In printed monographs and papers of course, but more significantly in the press and the public domain.

There can be little doubt therefore, given the wealth of contemporary attention that was paid, that i) the man existed and ii) that his life and work have been accurately recorded.

This cannot be said of Jesus, nor of the vast majority of the activities related in the New Testament. There are no contemporary accounts. No third-party corroboration. Which - given that the material should have been at least as attention-grabbing as Darwin - is a mystery that no-one has yet been able to explain.

Discussing a single verse, as you propose, therefore has absolutely no value.

>>In those verses (Mark 1:1-4) many of the elements which we should understand about Biblical interpretation are present.<<

Only, Boaz, if you can suspend disbelief for long enough to accept any part of the New Testamant at face value. Otherwise, it is as relevant as trying to find the meaning of life in the opening paragraph of a John Grisham novel.

>>I fail to see why when 'religious' texts are involved something seems to go haywire in some peoples brains<<

Not mine, Boaz. But I fear it may be true of yours.

Boaz

You invite personal attack when you wilfully refuse to engage in debate.

You desire to have the playing field only on your terms. I introduced a well reasoned and valid interpretation of women's status in the bible as interpreted by a male Christian.

How did you deal with that?

Let me remind you: ". believe it or not..I'm quite comfortable with your information. I might not view it as entirely Biblical (when correctly interpreted:)."

WHEN CORRECTLY INTERPRETED? - Whatthaf*ck does that mean?

Rhetorical question Boaz, because it means as interpreted by you.

And you wonder why I have referred to you as a narcissist.

You have not offered your interpretation of a single piece of secular philosophy. WHY?

Rhetorical question again. Because you simply are intellectually incapable of thinking laterally. You have the most narrow view of the bible of anyone I have encountered. You whine about personal insults, but don't realise that your weaknesses and failings are completely obvious to others.

You are always telling others what to read, what to view, but never return quid pro quo. This is why I, CJ, Pericles and many others find you completely disingenuous. A fake Boaz. A big blustering buffoon.

You have no credibility, because you do not treat others as credible.

Beware the man of one book

9)

The Jews were_not chosen, but were_urgent to-be-a Church, from their Love_of Pre-eminence

as-appears in many passages of the_Word,
"Jehovah said unto Moses, ...I will not go up in the midst of thee,
for thou art a stiff-necked people;...

..and Moses said unto Jehovah,..
.. Now, therefore, I pray Thee,
if I have found grace in Thine eyes, make known to me_thee,
I pray Thee, and_Thy way,
that I may know of Thee,
that I have found grace in Thine eyes;
and see that this nation is Thy_people.

(Exod. xxxiii).





Again: "Jehovah said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke Me?
and how long will they not believe in Me,


"Moses supplicated, and Jehovah being entreated said, "
I_will be propitious according to Thy word;

nevertheless I live,
and the_whole_earth shall be-filled with the_glory of_Jehovah.

For as to all these men who have seen My glory,
and My miracles,.. and yet have tempted Me these ten times,
and have not Obeyed My voice,

(Numb. xiv).

but that they were urgent,-had-a-passion-[were_salty]
and therefore it was done. (AC n. 4290)

They were urgent that a church should be instituted among them
but this was for no other end than that they-might-be distinguished above all-nations


For beyond others they were in the love of self,[and-the-rite/ritual]
and they-thus could not be exalted to eminence over them
by other means than that Jehovah,
and thus their church also, should HE_be among them
for where Jehovah is, there is the church.

That this was the end is evident from many passages in the Word;
as from these words also in this chapter

(Exod. xxxiii): "Moses said, Wherein shall it become known here
that I have found favour in Thine eyes, I and Thy people?

Is it not in Thy going with_us, and our being rendered excellent,
I_and_Thy people, above all the people that are on the faces of the earth?" (ver. 16)

Why the Jews are called in the Word a Holy-People

The reason why that people is called in the Word the people of Jehovah[is-that-they_alone-wouldst-preserve-these-words-]
[YET-miss-the living/loving/grace they reveal]


http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/comp/comp328to415.htm#third

boaz, if I may enlighten you as to some of the reasons why I think posters are reacting negatively to your comments here.

For starters, consider the title of the thread: 'How to interpret texts.'

Interpretation:

"An intellectual process in which you select, gather, and reassemble information and evidence within the framework of your own ideas."

www.lib.unc.edu/instruct/manuscripts/glossary/

So, 'interpretation' is a relative term. Effectively, in the title of this thread, you are implying there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret these documents.

This is not the case. There are only people, each with their own experiences and abilities to apply logic. Each will have a very different interpretation.

In saying that there is a 'right' and 'wrong' way to interpret a text, particularly one so old an unreliable as the bible, you are not discussing the neutral process of interpretation you seem to think you are.

What you are in fact saying, is that 'I am the only one here who is able to interpret these documents properly, and here is how you should do it. You should all interpret these documents in the way I do.'

Which, of course, is 'interpreted' by myself and most posters, as a particularly clumsy attempt to position yourself as an expert, when I for one, see it as more of a highhanded arrogant exercise in saying how everybody should just listen to your 'interpretation' because you're the only one who has the truth.

Or more simply: "I'm right, so listen up folks, here's how it is."

That's the core of this. Don't patronise us, boaz. We disagree. Many think you are wrong. But rather than politely disagreeing, you're coming back and saying there is only one right answer and you're the one with the keys to it.

But then, that's just my 'interpretation.' I accept that. At least, I don't try to pretend there is a right or wrong way to interpret such things.

Can you perhaps, see why your approach is seen as arrogant and offputting in the extreme?

Dear TRTL... I used the phrase "how to".. deliberately.. because there 'is' a way.. an accepted way used by lawyers, government, people.. every single day of their lives...

It seems there is so much hot air and bias going on here that this is being missed.

It is as simple as "what do words mean on paper"

I used the crimes act and a trust deed to illustrate how this is an everyday common thing.

Yet.........

as I said.. for some reason, mentioning 'religious' texts.. causes some kind of brain malfunction...

You are even suggesting that I'm inviting people to 'my' "interpretation" when I'm actually inviting people to 'walk the road with me'... in looking at..either .. Darwins paragraph, the crimes act, a trust deed..etttttcetera.

I used Mark 1:1-4 as an example.. of a text which we can ALL interpret based on the SAME principles as I myself applied to Darwins bit...

How hard is that? and..I get Pericles whining about 'oh but we know Darwin existed'..duh.. that has ZERO to do with interpeting a bit of written material attributed to Darwin 'as it stands'...

Yes, we CAN go deeper.. we can look at 'did he exist'..fine. It does not change the 'meaning' of the words attributed to him one iota.
What it MIGHT change is our response 'to' them.

Now..you say "Interpetation is a relative term"... agreed 100%, but.. how many 'different' interpretations of a piece of the crimes act do you think there are? Such things are deliberately written to have 'specific' meaning.
Defense councils don't challenge that meaning, they challenge technical points and try to claim their client 'was at his mothers place on that night' etc.

It looks like Pericles and Fractelle are beyond help with their biases.. you might still be able to participate meaningfully :)

Mark 1:1-4? c'mon..give it a go. What is it saying? "The beginning.....of....the...Gospel....of...

"Dear TRTL... I used the phrase "how to".. deliberately.. because there 'is' a way.. an accepted way used by lawyers, government, people.. every single day of their lives..."

No. There isn't. There are laws they have decided upon, and have thus agreed to abide by a particular interpretation, in order to facilitate their profession.

Actually, having a family member who practices law has given me a rather jaded view of how supposedly immutable these interpretations really are.

The mark of a good lawyer, is how he can best bend that mutually agreed upon interpretation.

No such interpretation can possibly exist for an ancient text, where the authors have been spaced over many years and have come from different cultures.

Hell, some of them believed in witches.

So no, there is no way to 'interpret' a document. Only what people have agreed upon. Even there, there is little consensus.

Clearly, there has been no agreement on the bible. To claim there is a right way to interpret it, is simply to claim that your opinion of it is the only 'right' one. I imagine the mormons, seventh day adventists, atheists, muslims and protestants would have a different interpretation of said book.

Actually, to further prove my point, you yourself are lobbying for change to the religious vilification laws, am I correct?

Putting aside issues of whether I agree or disagree, you would concur that you are aiming to change this interpretation?

If such a law can change so dramatically from its relatively recent inception to now, how on earth can you sit there and claim a biblical document should have any of the same meaning as the past? How can you maintain such a stance against homosexuality, for instance?

Let me guess - this is because your interpretation is that it's the word of god, and your interpretation is the 'right' one.

You can claim that Vanilla et al are beyond help with their biases, but this is just a whopping stone coming from a glass house. But I suppose that's just my interpretation of this debate.