06 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll need more time than I can manage at work to respond to this, so I'll have to wait till the end of the day. Needless to say, I'm not against a "truce" on the legal hermeneutics matter.
1. Look, you and others constantly fail to ascertain the difference between a deductive and inductive argument. I cannot "demonstrate" i.e. logically prove that the principles behind the interpretation of legal documents are just as applicable in interpreting Scripture; I can only make arguments supporting the idea that they should be. I have used logi ...[text shortened]... m using are not universal, at least until it matters in the argument. What say you?
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAlright, I'll stop talking about whether the hermeneutic principle you're using is used in legal systems outside the US. Anything to keep you from going to the library! 😉
1. Look, you and others constantly fail to ascertain the difference between a deductive and inductive argument. I cannot "demonstrate" i.e. logically prove that the principles behind the interpretation of legal documents are just as applicable in interpreting Scripture; I can only make arguments supporting the idea that they should be. I have used logi ...[text shortened]... m using are not universal, at least until it matters in the argument. What say you?
Regarding the language issue, it is not a question of abdicating your reasoning facilities - but of using them to their fullest. For instance, the question "Why do you call me good?" can be translated into my native tongue (Malayalam) in two ways - one of which is usually rhetorical and the other not. Reading the statement in English means one might miss the sense of the original. Also, while the statement might connote a denial in English, it is not necessary that it should do so in another language.
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd in this case it does not connote a denial in English. Which is why it is absurd for one to assert that it denotes a denial. It's absurd to assert that a question denotes a denial when it does not even connote one. As you have said, (and even No1 has indicated) we must understand the text with regard to the author's intent.
...Also, while the statement might connote a denial in English, ....
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou can keep parroting the same line, but the rhetorical question certainly does connote a denial of being "good". It was clearly understood by the Rich Young Man as a command not to call Jesus "good". And the second sentence says God IS good. Thus, the passage in its clear and obvious meaning is Jesus saying he is not God and you've given no reasonable interpretation of the passage that is otherwise, instead relying on passages distant in time and with different authors to say the passage can't mean what it clearly says. This is not interpretation; it is a pig headed insistence to make everything dovetail wuith your preconceived (predetermined?) ideas.
And in this case it does not connote a denial in English. Which is why it is absurd for one to assert that it denotes a denial. It's absurd to assert that a question denotes a denial when it does not even connote one. As you have said, (and even No1 has indicated) we must understand the text with regard to the author's intent.
06 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYou can only come to that interpretation by ignoring the intent of the author - and you have given no reason for doing so. I have given two additional valid interpretations and shown how one is clearly consistent with the rest of the text. So it is your preconceived notions that dictate your understanding. You don't even apply your own standards of interpretation.
You can keep parroting the same line, but the rhetorical question certainly does connote a denial of being "good". It was clearly understood by the Rich Young Man as a command not to call Jesus "good". And the second sentence says God IS good. Thus, the passage in its clear and obvious meaning is Jesus saying he is not God and you've given ...[text shortened]... ig headed insistence to make everything dovetail wuith your preconceived (predetermined?) ideas.