Anybody who's studied the Bible--or who's had something they say be misrepresented--knows the importance of taking things in context. As all seminarians are taught in hermeneutics (Bible interpretation), "Context is king!" Or, more wittily, "A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext."
Probably at least half (but who's counting?) of the "Bible contradictions" that today's anti-God-botherers like to go on about can be resolved simply by examining the verses in their proper context (grammatical, textual, or historical). They've heard that line, of course, and more than once I've seen them reply, "That's just a rationalization! How much can changing the context really alter the plain meaning of the words?"
Enter Barack Obama and Jay Leno.
Two unlikely folks to bring into a discussion on hermeneutics, you might think, but watch this. In a hilarious bit that was arguably the highlight of the new Jay Leno Show premiere, Jay appropriated some clips from a recent TV interview with the president and simply changed the context a bit to make his own "interview"--some pure comic gold. Watch for yourself, and, between your guffaws and your rolling around on the floor, consider how much difference a change in context can really make:
Unfortunately Christians are quite guilty of this also.
Plenty of errors to be had with context, too.
Anyone care to contextualize God saying homosexuals should be put to death or the animal sacrifice or the slavery or buying and selling women as property (using foreskins for currency)?
@MC_Shann@xanga - Yes, the guilt can be lavishly spread around to every 'color'/class of humanity---it is endemic, no matter how hard one tries to eradicate it! Humans constantly mis-communicate--sometimes intentionally! LAW--
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - Does that mean that people interpreting the Adam and Eve creation story and people interpreting Jesus to have healed lepers have to show proof as well?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - The question here is simply what the text really says and means, so yes, they (and anyone else) have to demonstrate that their interpretation is the most accurate reading of the text. Every scholar does that. See any commentary for examples.
(Whether it happened is a separate question that we can't answer until we determine what event we're actually talking about.)
@PKforchrist@xanga - Often, but many atheists fail to realize that it can cut both ways.
Anybody who's studied the Bible--or who's had something they say be misrepresented--knows the importance of taking things in context. As all seminarians are taught in hermeneutics (Bible interpretation), "Context is king!" Or, more wittily, "A text without a context is a pretext for a prooftext."Probably at least half (but who's counting?) of the "Bible contradictions" that today's anti-God-botherers like to go on about can be resolved simply by examining the verses in their proper context (grammatical, textual, or historical). They've heard that line, of course, and more than once I've seen them reply, "That's just a rationalization! How much can changing the context really alter the plain meaning of the words?"Enter Barack Obama and Jay Leno.
True
Comments (14)
Ouch, youtube fail. May want to find a different copy of teh video.
bummer -would have been good to see the vid...
@MagisterTom@xanga - @pamilvr@xanga - Here is a working link to the clip: http://www.thejaylenoshow.com/video/clips/prez-and-jay/1157069/
@SirNickDon@xanga - Thank you, Sir
Unfortunately Christians are quite guilty of this also.
Plenty of errors to be had with context, too.
Anyone care to contextualize God saying homosexuals should be put to death or the animal sacrifice or the slavery or buying and selling women as property (using foreskins for currency)?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - what is your question?
@MC_Shann@xanga - Yes, the guilt can be lavishly spread around to every 'color'/class of humanity---it is endemic, no matter how hard one tries to eradicate it! Humans constantly mis-communicate--sometimes intentionally! LAW--
Like, what is a metaphor? What is literal?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - The burden of proof is always on the one who proposes the interpretation.
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - I thought that was an atheist talking point.
@Pass_the_Aura@xanga - Does that mean that people interpreting the Adam and Eve creation story and people interpreting Jesus to have healed lepers have to show proof as well?
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - The question here is simply what the text really says and means, so yes, they (and anyone else) have to demonstrate that their interpretation is the most accurate reading of the text. Every scholar does that. See any commentary for examples.
(Whether it happened is a separate question that we can't answer until we determine what event we're actually talking about.)
@PKforchrist@xanga - Often, but many atheists fail to realize that it can cut both ways.