A translation of a recent post put in a local newspaper. The text might be hard to grasp, partly because of my very quick and bad translation, and also because this guy writes in such a way that it is hard to understand (on purpose).
This is a text put in by a guy who calls himself trapetartist, after an ongoing dicussion that I have been a part of in the paper.
Hermeneutics in science is put together by many elements - not just textual hermeneutics like my previous article talks about. The big revolution in traditional interpretation of the Bible is that all the sources by default is equal in that they are separated sources. This means that other sources, for example the gospel of fillip, where Jesus kisses Magdalena, is to be treated in the same way as the other gospels. But when one has left this theoretical start, it is because of science that gathers relevant information and interprets this in , idealistically, an objective and factual view of history. It is in this process that some of the main sources to the sensational books about christianity, gnostic sources, becomes discarded as historical documents. This same problem does also happen to the Bible. To look at the Bible as a historical source, is fruitless in terms of historical usefulness; just because the Bible has got many clear historical facts presented correctly, this doesn’t mean that everything is historical correct. They also used Homers Iliad during the search for Troy - which they found. This does not necessarily mean that greek mythology is true. If some of the Bibles references are contradictory or false, this does neither prove that everything is wrong. We need to dig for the objective history in the subjective religious text. This is the core of scholarship of the Bible and is connected to the biggest challenge: Objectivity. Most of the science on the Bible is done by christians. Could one really be religious and also objective when one is working with the text? Probably not, men the same applies to atheists. The focus is not if these kinds of texts are historical, but to what degree. If one takes the consequence of this, two of the radical viewpoints are excluded: The Bible as a historical source and the Bible as fiction. On other words: Miracles and Dan Brown
Would love if you could put some responses to this in the comments 
That would help me alot - I need to respond to this within a week.
Siste kommentarer