Image123: You have your break. I was specific about the 'was in rome' part. Good morning

And a very Good morning to you too sir.

I found this on a website and thought it quite interesting and pertinent to this thread. Apparently this happened in a discussion between Dawkins and a Rabbi.

Here's a pertinent quote:
The author insisted, however, that he was referring to the God of the Old Testament as he actually appears in the text. This prompted Lord Sachs to accuse Dawkins of reading the Bible "literally, as a fundamentalist."
"How do you decide which bits are symbolic and which bits are not?" Dawkins later asked.
"Very simple," the Chief Rabbi replied. "The rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: if a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally."

http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/scientific-fact-determines-hermeneutic?page=2&commentId=2124612%3AComment%3A427428&x=1#2124612Comment427428

Pastor AIO: ......................
So you see, interpretation depends entirely on context. And the context in which you read the bible is not based on the bible. The Bible is subjected to the interpretation. The instructions for interpretation is not found within the bible, so therefore the bible is subject to another authority above it, [b]The Authority Of The Interpreter.
Actually this applies to all text, not just the bible, so Koranist should also take note.

It all depends on who the interpreter is. The reader can interpret or let the Holy Spirit interpret! The reader can interpret to suit his own ideas or follow the interpretation as given by the Holy Spirit, regardless of his own personal 'tastes'!

Pastor AIO:
cool, my only concern now is that 'the spirit of God' can only be applied to the bible. Why can't the 'spirit' give me a new perspective when I read the morning paper? Why can't i use the 'spirit' to read my memo when I get to work? this will surely give me some deep insights that will make me an asset to my company.

Yes, he can! Just ask him to!

Pastor AIO:
I found this on a website and thought it quite interesting and pertinent to this thread. Apparently this happened in a discussion between Dawkins and a Rabbi.

Here's a pertinent quote:
The author insisted, however, that he was referring to the God of the Old Testament as he actually appears in the text. This prompted Lord Sachs to accuse Dawkins of reading the Bible "literally, as a fundamentalist."
"How do you decide which bits are symbolic and which bits are not?" Dawkins later asked.
"Very simple," the Chief Rabbi replied. "The rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: if a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally."


http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/scientific-fact-determines-hermeneutic?page=2&commentId=2124612%3AComment%3A427428&x=1#2124612Comment427428

The Rabbi couldn't be wronger! If his position were the truth, for example, we would be saying that majority of the old testament miracles narratives are not to be read literally. If I were to apply the Rabbi's position to the exodus from Egypt I was reading last night, I shall be in a state of complete and utter befuddlement, instead of the glee with which I read and the understanding I received! e.g all the plagues, food falling from the sky Moses hands up = victory, hands down = defeat, rods and snakes, sea parting .

In most cases where a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is a miracle/supernatural occurence!

When folks refuse the authority and interpretation of the Church that gave us the Bible - the one which was founded by Jesus Christ 2000yrs ago, this is what they get. Anarchy and possible doom.

30000 so-called denominations, millions of so-called non-denominational Christians and interpretations of ONE doctrine is not what God wants.

I'm sorry for being so blunt.

REPEAT:


I found this on a website and thought it quite interesting and pertinent to this thread. Apparently this happened in a discussion between Dawkins and a Rabbi.

Here's a pertinent quote:
The author insisted, however, that he was referring to the God of the Old Testament as he actually appears in the text. This prompted Lord Sachs to accuse Dawkins of reading the Bible "literally, as a fundamentalist."
"How do you decide which bits are symbolic and which bits are not?" Dawkins later asked.
"Very simple," the Chief Rabbi replied. "The rabbis in the 10th century laid down the following principle: if a biblical narrative is incompatible with established scientific fact, it is not to be read literally."

http://theologica.ning.com/forum/topics/scientific-fact-determines-hermeneutic?page=2&commentId=2124612%3AComment%3A427428&x=1#2124612Comment427428