|
pratumlatum
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Interests: I am on a quest to find something in God's creation that is NOT interesting. (Because that would be very interesting.)
Expertise: Deleting blog posts.
Message: message me
Member Since:
5/4/2006
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Exegesis and EisegesisBoth are unavoidable. And that's okay.
I submit that nothing in the Bible can be understood without imputation, without eisegesis of some kind. Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, but what is a lion? How do you understand the Hebrew or Greek languages? Is applying St. Paul's teachings to the 21st century a way of 'adding meaning' to the text? Meaning that wasn't originally there?
Likewise, if we are reading the Bible, we are always exegeting and 'taking stuff out.' We are certainly talking about Jesus being the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, about St. Paul's teachings, and perhaps we are even talking about them in Hebrew and Greek.
In fact, I submit that *all* books are this way. They are conversations. Exegesis is impossible without eisegesis, and eisegesis is impossible without exegesis. It's much more useful instead to ask, are we imputing something we shouldn't? Are we extracting something that isn't there?
| | |
| I'll have some blood, please...After Noah gets off the ark, God gives him the animals in a way he hadn't previously. Noah is growing up; he has more responsibilities now. The fear and dread of you will now be in the animals' hearts; just as I have given you the plants I have now given you the animals. Go ahead and eat the animals, but don't take their blood--that's where the life is. And don't take man's blood either. No animal or man should ever take a man's blood. For his blood I will require a reckoning.
I believe there is some sort of connection between taking an animal's blood and taking a man's blood. The parallels are too obvious.
This is fascinating: we are allowed to eat animals, but not take their blood. And don't take man's blood either. Perhaps there is a distinction between 'eating' an animal and 'murdering' an animal. Or perhaps not. In any case, why do these two principles apparently go together?
Notice that when God speaks of the great wickedness over the face of the earth, he explicitly says that He wishes to destroy all animals as well. The animals are ours; they are part of our household. When our household is judged, that includes the animals. When we are redeemed, so are they. God tells Noah in the same breath that now he can eat animals and execute murderers. But murderers shouldn't exist. Therefore, eventually execution of murderers shouldn't exist. And perhaps we shouldn't eat animals either, eventually.
| | |
| Mother!Initially we know Adam's wife only as 'the woman.' When the serpent deceives her, God pronounces a curse on the woman: painful, difficult childbirth. Immediately after hearing this curse, Adam names his wife 'Eve,' the life-giver, for she will be the mother of all living. It is as if Adam suddenly realizes that his wife will give birth to children -- an event he had perhaps not considered up to that time. | | |
| Shepherd WolvesLast night Timothy brought over the 'Planet Earth' documentary put on by the BBC and a half dozen of us enjoyed watching it. Glorious video; I recommend it to anyone and everyone.
Again and again, we saw herds of ruminating animals: caribou, gazelle, mountain goats, etc. Each animal had its own predator: wolves, wild dogs, mountain lions, etc. The drama of the chase formed a big part of the documentary. Isaiah says the lion and wolf will eat grass and lie down with the calf and lamb. No more predators.
But what if...
What if wolves belong with sheep? What if mountain goats need mountain lions? Think about it. Sheep dogs are redeemed wolves. What if the wolf was created to shepherd and guide sheep? What if cheetahs were meant to be miniature stewards and care givers of the African plains? Wolves will remain different from sheep, even if both will be herbivores eventually. Giant herds need guardians and stewards, even in the wild. What if these 'predators' today are meant to help us later? | | |
| AuthoritySomething I've struggled with for years: who are the proper authorities, and why? Who should I submit to, when should I do it, and why? It's especially difficult in matters of civil or ecclesiastical authority. 1. If monarchy is a good idea, then why isn't the papacy a good idea? It seems the same principles and arguments should apply in both cases. 2. Was Martin Luther's schism good or evil? I know he was *reluctant* to leave the church, become a certified "heretic," and start his own brand of Christianity (isn't that what denominations are?). But it really doesn't matter whether he was reluctant or not. He did it. Was he right or wrong? 3. Who was right in the Great Schism between the East and West? And why? And according to arguments for Apostolic Succession, does only the justified party possess truly legitimate authority? 4. Is it okay for an elder or pastor to appoint himself arbitrarily, or must that authority come from elsewhere? If the latter, then does that authority come from above, or below? (A.) If above--from bishops or other elders--then that sounds like Apostolic Succession. Which sounds silly, if it's consistent. (B.) If below--from the congregation--then that sounds like democracy. Which sounds wrong, if it's consistent. 5. Was the War for American Independence wrong? If so, then why not the War for Southern Independence also? (And I didn't even ask the age-old question, "Is it a sin to speed on the highway?"....) | | |
|
