Pastor AIO:

To insist that people bring money when the sharing of money is not at the center of the activity is wrong. It it were a financial Co-op that we were establishing then okay, yeah I would accept that.

The problem might be on 'insisting' on a 'specific' thing - in this case, money. Actually, I don't have a problem with whatever 'specific' thing any church seeks for itself, and thus cannot say that in that specific case they are "wrong". I think it is actually wrong of us to infer that others are 'wrong' when we have not carefully considered our own premises.

In the Deuteronomy passage under review, the "center of the activity" is not sharing money - then what is it? Fill in the gaps - and that takes you to peshat. However, when you draw from it and look at the allegoric meaning, you're moving past the peshat on to remez, which does not require that only a certain kind of contribution be made. Because it is 'allegoric', what then is the basis to say that someone is "wrong" just because it is not money that was being shared from the peshat reading?

It is not here an argument to 'justify' what one particular pastor said, afterall it could be argued that the pastor in question from the other thread was not specifically insisting on 'money' (even though one might argue again that such is what he might have meant). However, our purpose is to look at the value of a balanced interpretation on the basis of Pardes on the verse under review - Deuteronomy 16:16. Is it possible that one could apply the words 'they shall not appear before the LORD empty' in that verse to any other persuasion? If not, then why?

pilgrim.1:

Chrisbenogor, "Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them". Perhaps that is where the psychotic mix you interjected has led to. There really is no need to make such unwarranted statements by ignoring the basis of the discussion of this thread. People who are too eager to rubbish the persuasions of other people actually assume that what others are discussing are "foolish", and at the end it turns out they only advertizing their own folly. I don't mean this in a derogatory manner at you personally; but it would perhaps be helpful to let others alone even when you don't understand them.

Dear pilgrim,
é ya sorry oh, I don't know why you are taking this personally I was making a general statement. Show me where I rubbish the persuasions of anyone?
Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them
I have decided to read what you have wrote as insulting to my person   and I am sure I have a case  
Phew!
Anyway just incase someone else is reading this I was responding to this in particular

Pastor AIO:

Nobody is yet helping me with this my line of enquiry.

Is the bible to be taken literally or not.  If not,  then how is it to be interpreted.


For example, was it known by all Jews that the commandment not to 'muzzle the ox while it treadeth' was not referring to oxen at all.

Is the meaning of any text singular or can numerous various meanings be extrapolated from a text?  

I feel that the words in the bible, just like any other words can mean anything we read into it even if you are so sure that you have not insulted me with your remarks but I may choose to read that meaning into it!
How the bloody heck is that not in line with this thread?  

Chrisbenogor:

Dear pilgrim,
é ya sorry oh, I don't know why you are taking this personally I was making a general statement. Show me where I rubbish the persuasions of anyone?
Words are foolish, they go anywhere you push them
I have decided to read what you have wrote as insulting to my person and I am sure I have a case
Phew!
Anyway just incase someone else is reading this I was responding to this in particular
I feel that the words in the bible, just like any other words can mean anything we read into it even if you are so sure that you have not insulted me with your remarks but I may choose to read that meaning into it!
How the bloody heck is that not in line with this thread?

Em, pele. You took it personally? I forget say you're also a human being - like me. No vex; but again, please refer to my previous reply: I was also making a "general statement" like you when I said:

People who are too eager to rubbish the persuasions of other people actually
assume that what others are discussing are "foolish", and at the end it turns out
they only advertizing their own folly.

That's where I used the word 'rubbish', and then I went on to address you personally thus:

I don't mean this in a derogatory manner at you personally; but it would perhaps
be helpful to let others alone even when you don't understand them.

Again, I apologise - sincerely. I hope say you no go declare WW6 on my head!

pilgrim.1:

Em, pele. You took it personally? [/b]I forget say you're also a human being - like me. No vex; but again, please refer to my previous reply: I was also making a "general statement" like you when I said:

[b]People who are too eager to rubbish the persuasions of other people actually
assume that what others are discussing are "foolish", and at the end it turns out
they only advertizing their own folly.

That's where I used the word 'rubbish', and then I went on to address you personally thus:

I don't mean this in a derogatory manner at you personally; but it would perhaps
be helpful to let others alone even when you don't understand them.

Again, I apologise - sincerely. I hope say you no go declare WW6 on my head!

This is the point of my reply, not everybody who will read this replies will think I took it personally, others will think I am just messing with you which I obviously am, but you cannot fully say with the degree of certainty with which you post your replies on Nairaland ( no offence meant).
I can say you are a very very smart peacock that does not know the roots of the words humility in your life ( yet again I don't mean this in a derogatory manner ) . Only someone reading your replies at face value would miss the obvious insinuations in your reply that tend towards showing the folly of your adversary but also simultaneously chipping how very good you are at interpreting verses in the bible when all you do 98% of the time is word play and look for loopholes to bring their argument down ( oops yet again I dont mean that in a derogatory manner)
I will stop here for now you are way better than me at this , not derogatory oh,
Cheers.

Who here can tell me what my state of mind is about pilgrim from my statements?

Chrisbenogor:

Who here can tell me what my state of mind is about pilgrim from my statements?

I can. It's obvious you're quite disturbed.

Chrisbenogor:

This is the point of my reply, not everybody who will read this replies will think I took it personally, others will think I am just messing with you which I obviously am, but you cannot fully say with the degree of certainty with which you post your replies on Nairaland ( no offence meant).
I can say you are a very very smart peacock that does not know the roots of the words humility in your life ( yet again I don't mean this in a derogatory manner ) . Only someone reading your replies at face value would miss the obvious insinuations in your reply that tend towards showing the folly of your adversary but also simultaneously chipping how very good you are at interpreting verses in the bible when all you do 98% of the time is word play and look for loopholes to bring their argument down ( oops yet again I dont mean that in a derogatory manner)
I will stop here for now you are way better than me at this , not derogatory oh,
Cheers.

Doesn't really matter what you make out of reading my posts. It essentially brings out one point, though: '98% of the time' would make my arguments far too 'successful' than what they merit - but it's your call anyways.

Chrisbenogor:

This is the point of my reply, not everybody who will read this replies will think I took it personally, others will think I am just messing with you which I obviously am, but you cannot fully say with the degree of certainty with which you post your replies on Nairaland ( no offence meant).
I can say you are a very very smart peacock that does not know the roots of the words humility in your life ( yet again I don't mean this in a derogatory manner ) . Only someone reading your replies at face value would miss the obvious insinuations in your reply that tend towards showing the folly of your adversary but also simultaneously chipping how very good you are at interpreting verses in the bible when all you do 98% of the time is word play and look for loopholes to bring their argument down ( oops yet again I dont mean that in a derogatory manner)
I will stop here for now you are way better than me at this , not derogatory oh,
Cheers.

Brilliant summation spot on simply spot on

pilgrim.1:

I can. It's obvious you're quite disturbed.

Doesn't really matter what you make out of reading my posts. It essentially brings out one point, though: '98% of the time' would make my arguments far too 'successful' than what they merit - but it's your call anyways.

Disturbed kë, lol lol
just trying to show other people how foolish words are!

Chrisbenogor:

Disturbed kë, lol lol
just trying to show other people how foolish words are!

Na so na. . shebi we're both doing the same thing, abi?

Chrisbenogor:

Who here can tell me what my state of mind is about pilgrim from my statements?

Could they possibly be erotic? When I was a kid if I got into any argument with a girl all the adults would just laugh and say it is because we fancy each other.

Chrisbenogor:

just trying to show other people how foolish words are!

And words are indeed extremely flexible. It is for this reason that I believe that the less said about God the better.

Anything can be made to mean anything. When does one possible interpretation become valid and when isn't it valid. I reckon if it alludes to a verifiable truth then we can say it is valid. If it doesn't do so then we can keep guessing and exegesising till we go blue in the face. Contrary opinions will knock heads and nothing will ever be proven for true or false.

Pastor AIO:

Could they possibly be erotic? When I was a kid if I got into any argument with a girl all the adults would just laugh and say it is because we fancy each other.

Haba Pastor e never reach like that oh, lol I sure say she go fine for real life sha ,

Pastor AIO:

And words are indeed extremely flexible. It is for this reason that I believe that the less said about God the better.

Anything can be made to mean anything. When does one possible interpretation become valid and when isn't it valid. I reckon if it alludes to a verifiable truth then we can say it is valid. If it doesn't do so then we can keep guessing and exegesising till we go blue in the face. Contrary opinions will knock heads and nothing will ever be proven for true or false.

You are spot on, it took me quite a while to realise that no matter how much people analyse the bible here there will never be any clear cut agreement on the meaning of those words, mainly because the circumstances and motives of those who are writing it cannot be ascertained to an acceptable degree of accuracy.
So it leaves us to determine which parts we like and those that we don't we leave them out, voila, we have 30 000 sects in the religion.
I dare say all religions potray this same characteristic, the brain alone plays enough tricks on us.

Chrisbenogor:

Haba Pastor e never reach like that oh, lol I sure say she go fine for real life sha ,

I don tell you before: lose hope, because I wo-wo!

Can these exegetical methods be applied outside of the bible and still be valid?  Or are they only for divinely inspired scriptures?

I believe these methods are also used outside of the bible.  Especially with regards to peoples names. 

I know of at least one person that lived his life in every detail according to exegetical revelations.  He applied it to absolutely everything.  Most people in Nigeria said the man was simply mad and igbo had scattered his brain.  Let me give you one example of how my friend reasoned.

He was offered a recording contract by Motown records in the 90s.  Motown, he thought.  Mo ta ohun.  Motown, Mo ta ohun.  Mo ta ohun in yoruba means I sell voices. "Haaaaa!  So that is their secret.  They put selling voices into their name in yoruba so that they could get the power to really sell voices on records".  On the basis of the fact that he felt that he had undercovered their secret and thereby neutralised their power he rejected the contract.  A few months later Motown records folded. 
Before this guy died he claimed to be the one that brought about Motown's demise because he'd uncovered their secret. 

Would you say that his reasoning was exegetically sound?

Indeed, a humorous case to consider. But there's an answer: let the nigerian civil service explain their labour within the grid of Jewish exegesis, and viola! the 'oxen' will find a way!

- pilgrim

Not difficult at all. The grid of jewish exegesis clearly states that Oxen stand for ALL species of labor. If our officials are labouring somewhere then according to biblical understanding they have every right to chop from the same place where they labour.

- moi

Why can we conclude that the above case is 'Humorous' yet the pastor stretching communal activity to mean that you mustn't come to church without money is to be considered valid? That is my whole point of this thread. What is the extent of rigor that we are to apply.

How do we distinguish between a valid line of inference and an invalid one? What is the process that helps us make the distinction?

Again, what are the conditions that makes one line of inference valid and another invalid?

Please can anyone help me here?

The conditions?
-Personal bias
-Individual private preconceptions

There are no other conditions other than that,pastor.The folks who wrote the bible are bloody geniuses who knew human nature like the back of their hands and that was why they left the scriptures in their very ambiguous nature.Saying nothing specifically, as well as saying just about anything.It depends on who is doing the interpretations.
What of the parable issue?When does a scriptural text become a parable or one to be interpreted literarily?That is left to the readers discretion based on his/her preconceived ideological stand.It is all a goddamn game,pastor.Nothing to be taken too seriously.

Pastor AIO:

Again, what are the conditions that makes one line of inference valid and another invalid?

Please can anyone help me here?

jagunlabi:

The conditions?
-Personal bias
-Individual private preconceptions

There are no other conditions other than that,pastor.The folks who wrote the bible are bloody geniuses who knew human nature like the back of their hands and that was why they left the scriptures in their very ambiguous nature.Saying nothing specifically, as well as saying just about anything.It depends on who is doing the interpretations.
What of the parable issue?When does a scriptural text become a parable or one to be interpreted literarily?That is left to the readers discretion based on his/her preconceived ideological stand.It is all a goddamn game,pastor.Nothing to be taken too seriously.

Some people don't mess around when it comes to games.

What is wrong with ambiguity? What is wrong with not being specific? What is the difference between generally speaking and speaking specifically?

What is a Genus as opposed to a Species?

What is Gener[b]ic[/b] as opposed to Specif[b]ic[/b]?

What is Gener[b]al[/b] as opposed to Speci[b]al[/b]?

What is the distinction between Einstein's General Theory or Relativity

and his Special Theory of Relativity?

Perhaps understanding these distinctions might help us understand scriptures better. But not only scriptures but the world around us.

(bump) This thread is relevant to this other thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-882034.0.html#msg10298210

This thread also is a landmark for me on NL because it is one of the few places where Pilgrim and I tried to be nice to each other. I managed it with considerable amount of effort because I was aware that she was playing willfully dumb, and pretending not to get what I was saying. It involved me just patiently repeating my points over and over again.

Deleted

Sorry, wrong thread!

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

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."