Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

[bbyrd009]

"Well, again, looks to me like you are trying to overcomplicate things. When the Bible says it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man as with a woman....well, I just don't see much symbolism."

we can also read of "prophets gone a'whoring" in Scripture, i highly doubt that the prophets were actually going to sex whores, personally. Even if i agree that a literal interp there can also be intended. Sometimes a thing is just a thing, too, sure. I forget the exact quote lol

 

[OzSpen]

true, but i can access the debates of men more learned on the matter, and decide for myself.

Who are these "men more learned" than Arndt & Gingrich (lexicon), Thayer (lexicon), and Kittel & Friedrich (in-depth Greek word studies), to whom you can turn?

If you don't read and understand Hebrew and Greek grammar, how can you decide for yourself what is an accurate meaning for these languages used in the Bible?

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

Who are these "men more learned" than Arndt & Gingrich (lexicon), Thayer (lexicon), and Kittel & Friedrich (in-depth Greek word studies), to whom you can turn?

If you don't read and understand Hebrew and Greek grammar, how can you decide for yourself what is an accurate meaning for these languages used in the Bible?

Oz

well, those are who i meant. Iow if i were still so inclined, i could examine the debates surrounding some usage, and come to a working conclusion, even if i change my mind later. That falls under "too much study" to me now, and also "plowing my own ground," but that does not make them evil imo, there is a time for that i think.

One translation only might make for a...one dimensional perspective of Scripture, but we are privileged to have many, from which a consensus can emerge imo

 

[bbyrd009]

bb,

Hebrew and Greek lexicons do not teach grammar that would enable you to translate from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek into English.

Therefore, your statement in #53 has no basis in reality for you to translate, with your statement: 'wherein we might see how even translations lend themselves to scribing up, based upon the scribes perspective here rather than what is intended, whatever that may be'.

Oz

a point being that we are taught "thou shalt not kill," but i was able to find "don't do murder" on my own, without knowing ancient Greek, etc., by standing on other backs.

 

[OzSpen]

a point being that we are taught "thou shalt not kill," but i was able to find "don't do murder" on my own, without knowing ancient Greek, etc., by standing on other backs.

That is dealing with word meanings and not Hebrew or Greek grammar.

 

[DPMartin]

It is important to understand that as a Westerner, your thought processes are vastly different from those who have been raised to reason dialectically, as the Jewish writers were:

it seems that Dialecticism is simply looking at things in context as apposed to what could be called tunnel vison. westerners could be guilty of that for sure but outfits like US media love what is said to be metaphysical method. stage magicians use that all the time, if I'm showing you a small amount of what is true I can wrap that in as many lies as needed to deceive, and you never see the whole of what's going on.

but don't put much weight into "logic", it's a garbage in garbage out method at best, like a computer is. its only as good, or as useful as the user thereof. one can have a power tool in his hand, but that doesn't mean its a good job, well done because he used a power tool.

 

[bbyrd009]

it seems that Dialecticism is simply looking at things in context as apposed to what could be called tunnel vison.

i agree, but "intent" seems to be a big component of dialecticism, and it should be recognized that dialecticism can also be used to deceive, "satan's dialectic," etc. So, i'm still learning here, but in my limited experience asking directly for the point of an assertion if it is not clear, along the lines of "dialecticism is asserted to be a writing style used by the authors of Torah, to illuminate truth also, even if satan also uses dialecticism to deceive" for example, a clear statement that allows the reader to decide rather than a muddled answer, or some philosophical yack, generally brings the reality out into the open.

 

[DPMartin]

i agree, but "intent" seems to be a big component of dialecticism, and it should be recognized that dialecticism can also be used to deceive, "satan's dialectic," etc. So, i'm still learning here, but in my limited experience asking directly for the point of an assertion if it is not clear, along the lines of "dialecticism is asserted to be a writing style used by the authors of Torah, to illuminate truth also, even if satan also uses dialecticism to deceive" for example, a clear statement that allows the reader to decide rather than a muddled answer, or some philosophical yack, generally brings the reality out into the open.

I don't know, don't spend much time on it, been around the block many times with philosophically minded on philosophy web sites, but dialecticism is something I haven't seen as a subject or issue.

anything with in the reach of, can be used for the intent of. so method seems to prove nothing true or false, in this case. as far as the writers of the bible especially the Torah that I've noticed is the story sticks with the subject until its complete even if the next story is within the same time frame.

the seven days of creation and then after that its the subject of the man which happens on the sixth day. and when is the seventh day over? or the story of Noah seems to be over before Abraham but Abraham was 50 before Noah passed away, which means Abraham could have been told the whole flood event, and the history before it by Noah himself.

 

[OzSpen]

it seems that Dialecticism is simply looking at things in context as apposed to what could be called tunnel vison. westerners could be guilty of that for sure but outfits like US media love what is said to be metaphysical method. stage magicians use that all the time, if I'm showing you a small amount of what is true I can wrap that in as many lies as needed to deceive, and you never see the whole of what's going on.

but don't put much weight into "logic", it's a garbage in garbage out method at best, like a computer is. its only as good, or as useful as the user thereof. one can have a power tool in his hand, but that doesn't mean its a good job, well done because he used a power tool.

DP,

According to Oxford dictionaries online, dialectic means, 'The art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions' (2017. s v dialectic). Isn't that what we are attempting to do on CyB? I'm trying to investigate opinions expressed to arrive at the truth or to falsify a position. What is true or false biblically is what I'm doing in discussing issues on this forum.

A more academic, philosophical explanation is in Hegel's Dialectics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Oz

 

[bbyrd009]

A more academic, philosophical explanation is in Hegel's Dialectics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

i'm pretty sure Hegelian Dialectic is not what the OP was about; seems like i saw that dismissed in my reflections on this subject. Iow i don't think the Torah writers are deemed masters of "Hegelian" Dialectics. Unfortunately i am still to ignorant here to comment further, i'll see if i can retrieve the argument and post the thesis.

 

[bbyrd009]

"In Hegelian philosophy the conflict of political 'right' and political 'left'..."

"From the Hegelian system of political thought, alien to most of us in the West, stem such absurdities as the State seen as the "March of God through history," that the State is also God, and the only duty of a citizen is to serve God by serving the State, that the State is Absolute Reason and citizens can only find freedom by worship and utter obedience to the State. Other Hegelian absurdities have thoroughly penetrated our education system. But that is for another topic.

From this system of Hegelian philosophy comes the historical dialectic, "that all historical events emerge from a conflict between opposing forces." These emerging events are above and different from the conflicting events.

Any idea or implementation of an idea may be seen as THESIS. This thesis will encourage emergence of opposing forces, known as ANTITHESIS. The final outcome will be NEITHER thesis nor antithesis, but a SYNTHESIS of the two forces in conflict."
Hegelian Dialectics and Conspiracy

ya, this is not "Eastern" dialecticism, but Western Philosophy, and while i cannot condemn the conclusion here, @ "synthesis," we are talking apples and oranges i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

as may be seen in the difference between the conclusions above for Hegelian "dialectics" v this, for Eastern (or "naive") Dialecticism:
"A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction."
Dialectical Thinking: Chinese vs. Western Style — HCC Learning Web

 

[DPMartin]

DP,

According to Oxford dictionaries online, dialectic means, 'The art of investigating or discussing the truth of opinions' (2017. s v dialectic). Isn't that what we are attempting to do on CyB? I'm trying to investigate opinions expressed to arrive at the truth or to falsify a position. What is true or false biblically is what I'm doing in discussing issues on this forum.

A more academic, philosophical explanation is in Hegel's Dialectics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Oz

I'm not going to sweat bullets over it, all I did was google it, to get the gest of what is understood as dialecticism note the "ism" which usually means something in the order of philosophy, though not always. again, no matter the method the method is only as good as the info applied to it, in testing for truth.

to verify anything in order to know, requires witness, to get technical, and if its not your own witness, then its the witness you would, or might trust, in which case, could be faulty itself. so the only real proof, is your own witness, or experience if you will, hence then to know.

in the case of the Lord God, His revelation to His creation via His Word, in His Presence is how His creation knows Him.

 

[OzSpen]

to verify anything in order to know, requires witness, to get technical, and if its not your own witness, then its the witness you would, or might trust, in which case, could be faulty itself. so the only real proof, is your own witness, or experience if you will, hence then to know.

DP,

That's not true with testing of an hypothesis relating to history. There cannot be 'real proof' of my 'own witness' of Jesus' life, death and resurrection because I was not there in person in the first century to provide my own witness.

I was not in Australia in 1770 to witness Captain James Cook sail up the east coast of what was to be known as Australia.

Testing of historical hypotheses leads to a probable result, not a certain solution as if one had truthful eyewitnesses in the present.

Oz

 

[DPMartin]

DP,

That's not true with testing of an hypothesis relating to history. There cannot be 'real proof' of my 'own witness' of Jesus' life, death and resurrection because I was not there in person in the first century to provide my own witness.

I was not in Australia in 1770 to witness Captain James Cook sail up the east coast of what was to be known as Australia.

Testing of historical hypotheses leads to a probable result, not a certain solution as if one had truthful eyewitnesses in the present.

Oz

again
to verify anything in order to know, requires witness, to get technical, and if its not your own witness, then its the witness you would, or might trust, in which case, could be faulty itself. so the only real proof, is your own witness, or experience if you will, hence then to know.

if its not your own witness then its a trusted one, isn't it?

 

[bbyrd009]

I'm not going to sweat bullets over it, all I did was google it, to get the gest of what is understood as dialecticism note the "ism" which usually means something in the order of philosophy, though not always. again, no matter the method the method is only as good as the info applied to it, in testing for truth.

ya, we are led to "Hegelian" dialectics first now, using that method of search, and Hegelian dialectics is just Logic in a dress, near as i can tell. Assumes that A or notA are the only choices, invites the conflict as the only way to get to the synthesis, wherein a "winner" and a "loser" are implied.

i would equate this to searching for a definition of Tares now; you are going to get "Weeds," even in Strong's, now.

 

[ScottA]

This is all quite interesting from an historic standpoint. But from a biblical standpoint it should be no mystery: As the Jews have been held in a type of blindness, but during these times of the gentiles God pours out His spirit upon all flesh.

 

[Angelina]

I think some folks like to use fancy words. The Judaic Jews have as the above has mentioned, been blinded until the veil is removed. Even now this unveiling has been happening to individuals. Paul who was once called Saul is a good example.

 

[bbyrd009]

I think some folks like to use fancy words.

not sure what you mean here, i grant that these terms might be unfamiliar to some, but we nonetheless have a body of thought in Christianity that rejects "satan's dialectic," or "Hegelian dialecticism," what @Stranger amply demonstrates in the NFL thread for example; "A house divided is the only way to go, it is a given, and just be sure you are on the winning team."

 

[Angelina]

not sure what you mean here, i grant that these terms might be unfamiliar to some, but we nonetheless have a body of thought in Christianity that rejects "satan's dialectic," or "Hegelian dialecticism," what @Stranger amply demonstrates in the NFL thread for example; "A house divided is the only way to go, it is a given, and just be sure you are on the winning team."

What's a dialectic? I'm sorry I don't spend much time on such things. I am no theologian. Just a Christian believer with the gifts of evangelism, prayer/warfare/counseling and deliverance, worship, missions, I don't seem to find much time for anything else...