(July 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No, you specifically said ... [snip quoted material] ... Either you have a consistent methodology or you don't. Make your mind up!
You asked, "If there was actually a method for assessing Scriptures and that method were consistent, would we not expect consistent interpretations/answers?" You said that you would, and I would too. One method consistently adhered to should give us consistent results. The reason we don't have consistent results is because there is not "a method" (singular) for interpretting Scriptures; there are several methods. Some are academically faulty, or logically invalid, or outright retarded, but that does nothing to the fact that they exist and people use them. (For example, the methods for assessing Scriptures used by the Jehovah's Witnesses were developed by people who admitted under oath in a court of law that they could not speak the ancient languages, could not read them, could not identify basic letters from their alphabets, and had no familiarity with their grammatical rules). There are several methodologies out there—and many of them are horribly faulty—which is why we have inconsistent interpretations.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
