Show Notes::Beyond the Trailer Park 1/18/2016

For those that listened to BTTP Monday night 1/18/2015 we hit some heady stuff.  While as you can see by the following, I did script out what I wanted to speak to, I sometimes don't stay on point very well or we just plain ran out of time.  Below you will find basically what we talk on concerning hermeneutics with the examples I used of such, if you are so interested.

As many are aware, I am a former Bible and theology student.  I spent 3 yrs in college studying for the ministry.  Although I had a precursory interest in the "proper techniques" of studying the Bible, it wasn't until the issue of my being a lesbian, that it took on a new meaning.

Although I left that career path for psychology and did not graduate from 4 yr college I was exposed to some very excellent instructors and speakers.  I know what I am going to say is going to sound odd coming from an atheist, but think of it as "know thine enemies".  They taught me well, or at least I think they did as I still use what I was taught to this day although for opposite reasons.

I am no scholar nor an expert (although some say that after 25+ yrs on one topic, I could claim that title).  Yes, I have had schooling but I am also self "taught" and my "library" would prolly scare most atheists or at least have them scratching their heads - I have more religious themed or theology books and Bibles (74 different versions) than I do books concerning atheism. 

While my personal interest lays with homosexuality and the bile and surrounding subjects, ie Paulianity, the study principles are universal. Actually hermeneutics is a theory and/or methodology of textual interpretation and now-a-days is used primarily in the interpretation of biblical texts.  But it does have a strong foundation in philosophy as a theory of human understanding (Heidegger and Derrida being 2 names some may be familiar with).  BUT that is way beyond the scope of tonight's topic and falls into the Dave Foda realm of discussion

Along with hermeneutics you will some times hear the word exegesis, for some they are used interchangeably but in my day, hermeneutics was taught as a wider discipline which includes written, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Exegesis focuses primarily on texts or in some cases words.  Hermeneutics looks at the whole picture starting with a word or verse and building out to include paragraph, chapter, book, writer audience and genre.  It builds on archaeology, sociology, history etc..  There is a little bit of exegesis in hermeneutics and a little bit of hermeneutics in exegesis.

So y'all may be sitting there scratching your heads wondering WTF is Dune babbling on about now especially since we are an atheist show.  As many know Deb and I are gluttons for punishment, we like to go into these crazy atheist v theist debate groups and test our mettle along with trying to counter the BS.

For me personally I do have an agenda, besides seeing how many religionists I can piss off, and it does surround the alleged biblical condemnation of homosexuality.  Unlike Matthew Vines who is attempting to change the church from within with his "doctrine" of love, tolerance and acceptance.  I on the other hand want to show that what some interpret as condemnation, is not what they think it is.  If I can get people to "see" what they have been taught MAY be in error,,,, wishful thinking, I know.

My second piece of agendadizing is twofold,

1] noting how when a verse or narrative is put into its complete context, a whole different interpretation emerges.  (Usually the polar opposite of what those in the Reich would like you to believe)

• Deborah and Barak - Judges 4
• For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat - 2 Thessalonians 3:10

To me that deceit is intentional and very damaging, while I may not change the mind of the individual I am debating, it is the audience I am going for.

2] While this deceit may be intentional, it highlights what is so very wrong with the Bile and Christianity as a whole.  Two or three people may look at the same verse and come to different conclusions as to its meaning.  In other words, one can make the Bile say what ever you want it to say if you ignore the overall context, the hermeneutics.

A good example for me concerns,  the Nephilim - the Gen 6 giants.  while from an outsiders POV we may dismiss their existence, from a wholly biblical POV their prior existence can be substantiated (and no need to go outside the Bible - ie Book of Enoch - to do so).  One does not have to make up the elaborate mind games that goes with the Nephilim Scripted ideology.

And finally, and with this point I know I have hit my mark when I get the remark "you're an atheist, what do you know" or "you lack the holy spirit".  This sort of piggy-backs off #2.  Deb can attest to this as I know she has heard it as well, "we" have hit a sore spot.  In other words, we know more than them and the fact that we can support our positions drives them insane.  Rather than rethink their positions, they stick fingers in their ears.

That "lalala" attitude tells me one thing, BLIND FAITH.  They do not worship god, they idolize the men that teach to their dogmatic views because THEY do not want to change.  Like I have said before concerning the creation narrative, remove it, and the house of cards come tumbling down.  "They" are no longer "special creations" and "they" don't like that idea.  [ie Kim Davis]

For those of us raised in religion, we have all heard the adage, "the Bible, so easy a child could understand it".  Well guess what, telling me I need the discernment of the HS to study and understand the book tells me it is not as "easy" as you make it out to be.  Telling me "my" understanding of the text is incorrect because it doesn't match what you have been taught, tells me that it is not as "easy" as you make it out to be.  In other words, the Bile is bunk, and "god works in mysterious ways" just don't cut it.  (I have always said the best places to look for a counter argument to contentious passages, is other "christian" websites,,, the in fighting is brutal at times.)

If two people cant even agree on what the message of the Bible is, then why bother even having such a book.  This, dissension tells me that it is no better than Hesiod's Theogeny or Homer's Illiad and Odessy.  Or want to go further back, how about The Instructions of Shuruppak.

Before delving into exactly what hermeneutics is, there is one point I would like to make if it is not obvious.  I abhor cherry-picking!!  And yes, even though I dislike it, I am just as guilty as the next person.  It does have its uses when supported by sound hermeneutics, the best example concerns divination,,, just as many verses support its use as don't, which supports the contention the Bible contradicts itself, because it does.

So, two things,,,, WTH is hermeneutics? And why do you keep citing the KJV of the Bible?

First my overall approach to reading and studying the Bible.  And yes, as I mention on the show this is going to sound bizarre coming from an atheist but old habits die hard.  (The following statements are based on the presupposition that the "mainstream" Christian God exists and the Bible is His inspired, inerrant, infallible word.)

1]  I do not believe that God would embed secret knowledge in the Bible, using obscure techniques is totally foreign to the Bible’s plain teachings and precepts.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2]  All that God wanted us to know, is recorded plainly in the Bible which is to be read and pondered, not manipulated by those claiming to possess secret knowledge.  This goes back to my point of, "so easy a child could read it".

Daniel 2:27:: Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king;

3]  When studying scripture and one comes across an interpretive problem in the biblical text, one must allow the text to speak and must accept the testimony of the text with a presumption of accuracy.

Now add to that two pieces of instruction I hold to this day.  One I mentioned last week

I was taught that there were two prominent, overall thought processes in regards to biblical interpretation.  The "literal view" asserts that a biblical text should be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context; its meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors.  The second process is what my professor referred to as the "letteral view" of interpretation.  In essence it is a strict almost legalistic point of view.  A good example, that illustrates both views, Christ versus the Pharisees.   Within the Bible, the Pharisees are seen as people who place the letter of the law above the spirit (cf. Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6).

(The reference above can delve in to the whole moral vs civil vs ceremonial law BS.)

A second piece of instruction that I hold fast to, even as an atheist, is a 5-step process espoused by Henry A Virkler, in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981).  In Virkler's view this is the best method for attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s).

• Lexical-syntactical analysis :: The how and why of the words used focusing on sentence ordering, punctuation, tense of the verse, and other non-grammatical, lexical and syntactical issues. (Example::Elohim is NOT plural)
• Historical/cultural analysis is self-explanatory.  Know your history, understand the culture the text was influenced by.  (Example::Cultic temple prostitution Ahsteroth in the OT /Cybele in the NT)
• Context, context, context. (Example::2 Thessalonians 3:10)
• Theological analysis ::  A single verse usually doesn't make a theology. To take a verse from one book without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poor interpretation.
• Literary Analysis :: There are several literary aspects that must be taken into account with each genre having a different set of rules.  In the Bible, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language.

And remember there is a difference between someone like Steven Anderson and my college professor (who was also ordained).  But there is also a difference between Matt Slick and someone like Bart Erhman or Mike Heiser.

So that's hermeneutics in a nutshell.  If one takes into consideration all 5 points, you can see how the interpretation and meanings of passages do change.  It also showcases why I use it so much, hermeneutics in and of itself is the best means to show that idolatry of the Bile is bunk.  One cannot force Bronze Age or 1st century moral or ethical guidelines on 21st century society.

Using the OT, specifically the Holiness code (18-27) in Leviticus as an example, it relates primarily to the Levites and priests and their services. Also known as the "Law of the Priests" as it contains the system of laws administered by the Levitical priesthood under which the HEBREW nation lived.

What many "letteralist" like Swanson, Klingenschmitt, Anderson, Manning, Rafeal Cruz, Huckabee yada yada are guilty of here biblical hyperliteralism; it is a false way of biblical interpretation which leads to bigoted statements.  The Bible (whether you accept it as the word of God or as I do as a history of the Jewish people with no authority in how I lead my life) must be read in the context in which it was given. All scripture is given in a cultural, doctrinal, historical, linguistic and religious context; to ignore context is disingenuous at best, deceitful and malicious at worst.

Our discussion concerning the KJVOnly movement will be a separate posting as I am still finalizing some notes and resources.