I've come to the conclusion...

[aReformedPatriot]

I have come to the conclusion that scholars rarely agree on anything at all, each of which stresses a particular way to interpret something. My time at CF has shown how this practice is true. I personally do not like it simply for the fact that I enjoy unity and the concept of truth not being subjective. Though, I do think at CF most people do not consider truth to be subjective, nor do conservative scholars. Most I think would simply say that "your wrong, I am right" both of which provide support for their individual conclusions.

Does this bother anyone, do any of you agree, or am I just crazy?

Bro. mark

[ps139]

I agree Mark. Learning this has really prompted me to do research for myself, and just because "so and so" says it, doesn't mean its true.
In my college linguistics classes we had an in-depth study of a topic (the relationship between language and thought) that really showed me how people's personal opinions influenced their "science."
Its a long story, but basically in this field of linguistics there are two schools of thought, and I have come to the conclusion that people take sides based on their belief or denial of the Almighty.
We would see the same sort of experiments conducted by different teams of researchers (from the 2 schools of thought) and surprise, surprise, each study supported the positions of the scientists who ran it! Only once did I ever read a study where the scientist did NOT get his intended results, and he began to investigate more, and he changed his mind on the whole issue, because he had enough integrity not to deny the truth.
Well I'm sure that my anecdotes of linguistics classes wasn't the answer you expected, but I do agree with you, people have so many biases, and its rare you find research that isn't somehow shaded in one way or another. It is human nature, I suppose, pride; nobody likes to be wrong.

[SumTinWong]

I bought a book yesterday by a guy who is an agnostic but does believe that a higher power created the universe. What he has found amazing is that scientists would rather believe a far fetched idea than the simple truth, because the simple truth has consequences to how they live their lives. I agree.

It is called God and the astronomers

[Matthan]

Mark, I agree almost totally with what you say in your post. With respect to CF I find it extremely frustrating to point up something that is clearly stated in Scripture, and should therefore be easy to understand. And yet there will be those individuals who will argue that it really does not say what it says, or that what it says does not really mean what is stated, but something else.

Or, how about those individuals who will take a verse that says one thing and "imply" that it really says a whole lot more.... Makes me want to scream that old primal yell. sorry, I can't hold it back... Here it comes....

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please forgive me for that uncontrolled reaction.

Because of this frustration I find myself spending more and more time here in the Baptist/Anabaptist Forum rather than elsewhere such as GT. It just gets to me after a while, so I am spending more time among friendly Christians.

Matthan <J><

[aReformedPatriot]

Mark, I agree almost totally with what you say in your post. With respect to CF I find it extremely frustrating to point up something that is clearly stated in Scripture, and should therefore be easy to understand. And yet there will be those individuals who will argue that it really does not say what it says, or that what it says does not really mean what is stated, but something else.

Or, how about those individuals who will take a verse that says one thing and "imply" that it really says a whole lot more.... Makes me want to scream that old primal yell. sorry, I can't hold it back... Here it comes....

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please forgive me for that uncontrolled reaction.

Because of this frustration I find myself spending more and more time here in the Baptist/Anabaptist Forum rather than elsewhere such as GT. It just gets to me after a while, so I am spending more time among friendly Christians.

Matthan <J><

:P Yes, Yes i understand. I post mainly in B/A because everyone here I am on the same page with for the most part. The other forums I generally just read. I do like this site though, it's helped me many-a-time.

I bought a book yesterday by a guy who is an agnostic but does believe that a higher power created the universe. What he has found amazing is that scientists would rather believe a far fetched idea than the simple truth, because the simple truth has consequences to how they live their lives. I agree.

It is called God and the astronomers

That sounds interesting, it will soon be on my already lengthy amazon.com wishlist. :) I would agree with you, in my athiest friends their cheif concern is "how can you have any fun being a Christian, you cant do anything!" I just recently figured out how to respond to that. I found it hard to express how I found their version of 'fun' fun anymore.

I agree Mark. Learning this has really prompted me to do research for myself, and just because "so and so" says it, doesn't mean its true.
In my college linguistics classes we had an in-depth study of a topic (the relationship between language and thought) that really showed me how people's personal opinions influenced their "science."
Its a long story, but basically in this field of linguistics there are two schools of thought, and I have come to the conclusion that people take sides based on their belief or denial of the Almighty.
We would see the same sort of experiments conducted by different teams of researchers (from the 2 schools of thought) and surprise, surprise, each study supported the positions of the scientists who ran it! Only once did I ever read a study where the scientist did NOT get his intended results, and he began to investigate more, and he changed his mind on the whole issue, because he had enough integrity not to deny the truth.
Well I'm sure that my anecdotes of linguistics classes wasn't the answer you expected, but I do agree with you, people have so many biases, and its rare you find research that isn't somehow shaded in one way or another. It is human nature, I suppose, pride; nobody likes to be wrong.

Oh totally, even you and I have our biases(sp?). Im reading this book called Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using the OT Historical Texts (a bore by the way) which repeatedly shows how "new" archaeologists can totally ignore all of scripture as a basis to study the history of Israel because the biblical text, while it does record historical events, the information is useless for the fact that it is ideologically based in God.

Likewise any extrabiblical material that intersects with and substantiates the biblical narrative is likewise rejected by many. The counter-argument made is that if your going to use other religious epics that contain history then you should be fair and in so doing use the evidence provided in the bible.

I think that totally relates to what you were saying based on peoples opinion on whether God exists or not.

That would be an interesting study to read I might add.

Peace in Our Glorious Redeemer,
Bro. Mark

[ps139]

That would be an interesting study to read I might add. If you'd like to read my comments on the studies I'd be happy to send you the paper I wrote... its not too long, and I think you would like it :).

[SumTinWong]

That sounds interesting, it will soon be on my already lengthy amazon.com wishlist. :) I would agree with you, in my athiest friends their cheif concern is "how can you have any fun being a Christian, you cant do anything!" I just recently figured out how to respond to that. I found it hard to express how I found their version of 'fun' fun anymore.
Hey Mark :)

It is a pretty old book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393850064/qid=1110150974/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5290877-1577418?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), so if you don't find it on Amazon let me know and I will send you mine :)

From Amazon a reviewer said:
"Read this book if you have an interest in Astronomy or how astronomy relates to God. Jastrow presents a plausible view for how the universe began. What makes this book special is Jastrow's views on God and on the universe. Robert Jastrow is certainly not a Christan, and never proclaims to be. The God Jastrow argues for is very secular and can accomadate many religions. And perhaps that is the what makes his views special.

Much of what Jastrow says about the universe and how it had to have a beginning and a creator is very revealing. Jastrow has some famous quotes in this book that you may have read elsewhere. For this purporse alone the book is worth reading. One of the more famous views comes from his story of a philsopher trying to prove that God does not exist. The philsopher for years has come up against this unbearable mountain called God and just when it appears they are read to scale the mountain and proclaim victory, another mountain twice the orignal's size pops up. Jastrow argues that this second mountain is unaviodable and unclimbable. Because this is unacceptable for some, many chose ot ignore it or dismiss it. However, despite their efforts the mountain is still there and as Jastow points out, the mountian is there for good. Calling this mountain the Big Bang does not solve anything, rather it avoids the issue altogether.

Very well written. If you have not read books on astronomy do not worry. Nothing to complicated here, so you can dive right in."

[aReformedPatriot]

If you'd like to read my comments on the studies I'd be happy to send you the paper I wrote... its not too long, and I think you would like it :).

yes PM it to me, or if you can see my email feel free to send it there.

[Carrye]

I have come to the conclusion that scholars rarely agree on anything at all, each of which stresses a particular way to interpret something.

Ah, the joy of academia! I've found in modern scholarship the tendency to come up with something new simply for its own sake. It is no longer good enough to latch on to the one who came before (like the ancients did), but one must forge a new conclusion. What is disturbing to me is that it is most often done by "refuting" someone's earlier text. The reason that's frustrating for me is that it's a whole lot easier to take someone's text and point out its flaws than it is to create something new; it's easier and less work to say "you stink" than to create something new. I think that's the bane of post-modernism.

Most I think would simply say that "your wrong, I am right" both of which provide support for their individual conclusions.

Isn't it interesting how a person defines "moderate" based on what he/she is? And 'liberal' and 'conservative' are those to the left or the right of me. IMO, it's just more "I am the center of the world" individualistic mentality. And I am certainly not above that.

[Gold Dragon]

I have come to the conclusion that scholars rarely agree on anything at all, each of which stresses a particular way to interpret something. My time at CF has shown how this practice is true. I personally do not like it simply for the fact that I enjoy unity and the concept of truth not being subjective. Though, I do think at CF most people do not consider truth to be subjective, nor do conservative scholars. Most I think would simply say that "your wrong, I am right" both of which provide support for their individual conclusions.

Does this bother anyone, do any of you agree, or am I just crazy?

Bro. mark

Disagreement is a human and a linguistic thing that is not exclusive to scholars. I think you'll find that almost all disagreements of interpretation are really about disagreements in language.

I personally do not believe truth is subjective. However, I also believe that nobody on this planet has the entire objective truth. We try our best but our worldview, cultural contexts and pride often get in the way of the Holy Spirit working in us to reveal the bits and pieces of truth He is trying to show us.

I do believe it is about providing good support for your conclusions which is why I always emphasize quoting sources and quoting as much as possible from scripture using the best hermeneutics I am capable of. However, I always keep in mind that I could be very wrong and if someone has better support, better hermeneutics, I will have no problem conceding to them.

Personal revelation of the Holy Spirit is also something that I try to make sure I don't crowd out simply because my support and hermeneutics may be better than someone else's.