@Ray I'm not sure that your question is so different from this one that I asked. Perhaps you could phrase it in terms of canon.
Also, since you mention the fonts being different - one argument for their importance is that in the Hebrew manuscripts, the titles are inline with the rest of the text rather than above as in the English.
What hermeneutical approaches lead to a literal understanding of Genesis and what are the principle arguments made for these approaches being valid for the Genesis text?
I had always been told that a day meant 24 hours, but a systematic theology textbook I read disputed that pretty well. So I'm ...
@Ray NP. It's always just a little bit harder to get open votes than close ones. People aren't as likely to come back to a question they've looked at or a closed one as they are a new fresh one. It always takes a little campaigning.
@Ray Suggestions to fix? I don't know what the OP's intent but it seems like analysis of the hermenetuics that are required to arrive at a view is probably an on-topic thing.
I agree that question might not actually be salvageable.
But I am wondering whether reconstruction / analysis could actually be useful in some cases. It's definitely something that takes expertise. Looking at a conclusion and isolating the premises that had to be made to get there is harder than making the argument in the first place. But it's a useful skill.
There's more to it than that though... e.g., one approach sees there was no death before sin, so there couldn't have been billions of years of life propagating... that would be an approach that takes a broader look at other things scripture has to say
That's just an example... I suppose part of the problem is that there's not just one answer--it's a list
The problem I'm having with this whole thing is the hermeneutic circle: interpretation of text creates doctrine and doctrine is used to illuminate the interpretation of text. This question is asking for hermeneutics to support a given doctrine. On the surface, that sounds wrong, since the text should create doctrine. However, coming back to the hermeneutic circle, we are starting from a point of doctrine (whether we want to or not).
So, given the fact that we are starting from doctrine when we interpret text, asking for techniques that support a given doctrine isn't that much of a stretch.
The whole idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it's just as "valid" as asking for a list of any hermeneutic principles based on some criteria.
Overall, I think it's a bad question simply because it's not focused enough. However, I don't consider it Not Constructive or Off Topic, so I can't see leaving it closed.
Part of the problem that this question has suffered is known as the hermeneutic circle.
The idea is that we use the text of the Bible to determine our doctrine. However, in order to interpret the text of the Bible, we have to come from a doctrinal predisposition.
When we ap...
I'm going to put that there because I have to keep scrolling up to get to the question. (I always sit on the "Newest" questions list, so the question isn't even on my page.)
It's not ideal and I don't totally agree with it either. But it's something, at least. And I can see it being a reasonable argument (or at least relatively sound). I kind of disagree with the whole topic and approach.
@Richard, is the age of the Universe a simple question of religious doctrine? I'd say that acceptance of a young Earth over the general scientific consensus is the product of more fundamental religious doctrines such as doctrines that describe the value of scientific inquiry in general and the role of sacred history in the Bible
@Ami I agree that it is a complex topic. But I don't think that this is the site for discussion of doctrine or scientific queries regarding the age of the universe. The entire topic, to me, should be nearly off limits. I think that question comes as close as we can get to the topic without breaking those limits.
Recently, a question regarding 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (regarding women being silent in church) was asked. The literal interpretation of the text in itself creates and implies doctrine.
However, this question was asking about the historical context and interpretation of this text. This is clea...
@JackDouglas Oh, I should probably just delete it. I originally mentioned a sql problem i was having to Richard in another room, then made that comment, and he mentioned dba.se, do I posted there, and then i mentioned it here. What a mess
Definition and usage
The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text; rather, it stresses that the meaning of a text must be found with...
@JackDouglas That's why I think this is still an open topic. We don't have a consensus in any direction.
@Ray Bah. I think that territory isn't something that we need to worry about. People have written entire books about everything, so I think that (for the religion sites), this is not a good criteria of scope.
I feel that people always set their priors to exclude other views. I myself have changed my mind about some doctrine, but there are many doctrines that I refuse to change. My exegetical basis completely excludes any views that go against my "priors".
For example: What's your opinion on documentary theory? To me, it smacks religion in the face and so I completely reject it.
@Ray Oh, I agree. I do not think that the hermeneutic circle is complete, like all analogies. I actually tend to warp it a bit to fit my meaning. They're just ideas and concepts--models, as you say. None of these are perfect.
I think that's a doctrine unto itself. The problem is, even if you had to pick a doctrine and say "This is the true doctrine and all hermeneutics shall be based on this", which would you pick? There hasn't been any that haven't changed over time.