(November 12, 2015 at 12:08 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Agreed, alpha. The OP sounds like a radical post-modernism. What matters is consistency of the interpretation of the text with the text itself and the circumstances of its authorship. For example, a post-structuralist feminist critical theory reading of 'Lord of the Flies' has less support than a more traditional one. Correspondences with a real Piggy and actual conches have little bearing on whether some interpretation of its message and symbolism is better than another. This is not to say that biblical interpretation nearly so simple. The Scriptures are a compilation of 66 books written in different styles during different periods. Parsing out a generally consistent narrative is not too difficult. It is on the finer points that people disagree.
"consistency of the interpretation" - now here is the very problem isn't it? Do you not think that phrase to be a contradiction in terms Chad? Where interpretation is required, there is never going to be consistency.
