Why Does God's Voice Only Speak To The Mentally Ill?

March 29, 2015

See, the point of my discussion with Dude, however unclear and imprecise I may be in attempting to explain it, is that Christians shouldn’t get to have their cake and eat it too by insisting that the Bible is easy to understand and then scuff the heads of unbelievers because of apparent non-kosher reactions. Conversely, non-Christians shouldn’t get to say that the bible is an ‘easy’ target because it so obviously and easily fails. So, neither has much space, in my estimations, to make additional assumptions which emerge out of the idea that the bible is a so-called “plain text.”

Philo, thanks for the response. I'll back out now, since all this is way over my head. I guess god never intended for dummies like me to make it to Gloryland.

Signed,

Simple Sally

March 30, 2015

See, the point of my discussion with Dude, however unclear and imprecise I may be in attempting to explain it, is that Christians shouldn’t get to have their cake and eat it too by insisting that the Bible is easy to understand and then scuff the heads of unbelievers because of apparent non-kosher reactions. Conversely, non-Christians shouldn’t get to say that the bible is an ‘easy’ target because it so obviously and easily fails. So, neither has much space, in my estimations, to make additional assumptions which emerge out of the idea that the bible is a so-called “plain text.”

Philo, thanks for the response. I'll back out now, since all this is way over my head. I guess god never intended for dummies like me to make it to Gloryland.

Signed,

Simple Sally

Don't back out on my account, StJeff. I just read Philo's last response and I won't be able to begin to respond at least until tomorrow night.

If anyone else wants in, it's fine by me.

March 30, 2015

See, the point of my discussion with Dude, however unclear and imprecise I may be in attempting to explain it, is that Christians shouldn’t get to have their cake and eat it too by insisting that the Bible is easy to understand and then scuff the heads of unbelievers because of apparent non-kosher reactions. Conversely, non-Christians shouldn’t get to say that the bible is an ‘easy’ target because it so obviously and easily fails. So, neither has much space, in my estimations, to make additional assumptions which emerge out of the idea that the bible is a so-called “plain text.”

Philo, thanks for the response. I'll back out now, since all this is way over my head. I guess god never intended for dummies like me to make it to Gloryland.

Signed,

Simple Sally

StJeff,

You're not very convincing at playing a "dummy," Jeff. You might ask the director for another role to play.

Peace

Hardly Hulk

March 30, 2015

Philo, I'm into philosophy etc. too, and even publish stuff. But all I can say is... as they say where I come from:

Listen to yourself!

What you outline is the revelation of the omni-everything God to finite creatures?

Which does more honor to William of Ockham, to suppose that:

1. all the stuff you wrote is true AND say that the omni-everything God chose that method to reveal himself to finite creatures;

2. the texts are human creations, cobbled together after centuries of authorship by different, normal, non-inspired authors trying to put some wisdom out there?

March 30, 2015

Philo, I'm into philosophy etc. too, and even publish stuff. But all I can say is... as they say where I come from:

Listen to yourself!

What you outline is the revelation of the omni-everything God to finite creatures?

Which does more honor to William of Ockham, to suppose that:

1. all the stuff you wrote is true AND say that the omni-everything God chose that method to reveal himself to finite creatures;

2. the texts are human creations, cobbled together after centuries of authorship by different, normal, non-inspired authors trying to put some wisdom out there?

Hey Ficino,

Yes, I know you're also into philosophy, from the sound of it, you're quite a bit more so than I am. I don't publish, not yet anyway. If you do, I very much respect that, and I wish more people could appreciate our field of study.

I've listened to myself, Ficino. And like you, I've also listened to and read a host of Doctoral voices over the years, so I don't put a lot of stock in my own autonomous voice. I'm very aware that the most likely reason that I 'believe' and you do not--on a practical scale--is because I've lived through a different set of experiences than you, and I have read a different set of books.Taking that difference into consideration in contemplations of ol' Ockham's parsimony, as you've applied his idea in your post, I'd say that the two options you've provided demonstrate a somewhat reductionistic, dichotomous, and oversimplified approach. I don't say that as a criticism because I know you're thinking is much more complex than that, but I say it as an observer who has one foot in Modernism, the other in Post-Modernism, and his head in the clouds (or my butt, depending on which side of the coin your betting on).

However, you could be right. The biblical authors may have been non-inspired. It could also be that Christians have simply overinflated their case, causing a massive meltdown.

Anyway, I'll try to get to the 'Nature of Faith' thread at some point and look at 'evidential' aspects.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

March 30, 2015

I'd say that the two options you've provided demonstrate a somewhat reductionistic, dichotomous, and oversimplified approach.

The Bible (the bunch of texts that we have) is either the revelation of the omni-everything God, or it's not.

If it's wrong to put forth this dichotomy, then, is it wrong because:

1 - only some parts of the Bible are revelation?

2 - all of the Bible is revelation, but only parts are perspicuous, or none?

3 - God is not omni-everything?

or some other alternative to my dichotomy?

If 1 - the Bible is not a standard for us. Then,

a- there is no standard

or

b - there is some undisclosed standard that picks out and interprets the revelatory parts. Catholic? Mormon?

c - everyone just does the best he/she can

If 2 - you need a living authority to see through the Bible. Catholic? Mormon?

If 3 - then I don't think we're talking about classical Christianity anymore

On 1, it becomes hard to see why anyone should pay attention to religious claims based on the Bible.

On 2, we have the problem of finding the living authority. Back to earlier posts. But it will beg the question to use the Bible as evidence, from which to try to prove which is the living authority.

On 3, we are debating some religion other than Christianity. I can't prove that some other religion might not be true, but the years slip by, and there is little time.

March 30, 2015

.........Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

Peace to you too Philo.

Ok, Dude.

From what you’ve said lately, it seems to me that you’re still somewhat open to this thread, and St Jeff has expressed some interest, so I’m going to go ahead and briefly proceed to addressing more of our discussion of James 5:13-16. After a couple of posts here, I plan to head back to the ‘Nature of Faith’ thread and pickup with Ficino and StJeff.

Originally, I was going to write out a long, elaborate analysis of the verses you’ve “hollowed out from James,” but then remembered who my ‘audience’ was, as you advised me to do. So, I thought it better to shorten my response a little and deliver it in ‘pieces.’ (And I say this with a wink and smile…)

Here’s the first short piece.

In looking at the verses you’ve cited from James, I think we need to begin by exploring their meaning by acknowledging a few philosophical/philological matters that often get ignored by Christians and non-Christians alike, but which likely affect biblical interpretation. It’s particular important because the verses you’ve cited are often taken as extravagant possibilities by Christians, or viewed as metaphysically pernicious assertions through the hind-site of experiential disappointment. I’ve been privy to the latter case myself at times.

First off, in dealing with the Bible as a whole, I think we should dispense with the old adage initially proffered by the Reformers (such as Luther) that the Bible is in some way a “plain” literary entity. Today, knowing what we know about the Bible, I don’t think we can say that its ancient pages exhibit a simple message for simple persons. It should be fairly obvious to any modern reader who tries his hand at interpreting the bible that it is anything BUT a “plain text.” Unfortunately, the obviousness I speak of doesn’t seem to hold currency with many of the more Fundamental type thinkers, Christian or otherwise.

Secondly, we need to ask a question that probably doesn’t get asked because the answer may seem to be too much of a truism, and that question is: What do we mean today by the term, “plain text”? Without even attempting a complete and analytical breakdown of this term, I surmise that we can agree without too much commotion that a “plain text” is, at the very least, a literary entity that presents a simple to understood message, expressing a meaning that is cognitively graspable by even the most common person. Sure, Protestants have held a few additional notions about the “Perspicuity of Scripture,” but for the moment what I would like to focus on is a minimum denotation that is relevant to just about anyone and comports more with a more colloquial, English understanding of “plain.” If anyone here thinks differently, please advance a restatement—I’m all ears.

I want us to also be aware that if the Bible doesn’t qualify as “plain,” then various other associated Christian doctrines and dogmas might be at risk of needing further qualification. Without a “plain” Bible, Protestants today, and possibly other types of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or whatnot, will have to think twice--and maybe thrice—before becoming emotionally invested in any kind of view involving the essence of Christian life and faith. The typical Baptist and Pentecostal approach might represent something less than the best.

As we all know, there are people who still claim the Bible is an example of a “plain text.” They persist in believing that the Bible can be easily wafted in hand, flapped open on a table, surfed electronically, flipped through sporadically, and wherever one applies some eyes to the confines of its massive bulk, clear meanings will fly forth like fire-works, becoming magically discernible with only a modicum of mental effort. With this kind view, it seems that the local, uneducated farmer should be able to understand the Bible just as easily as the most tenured, ivory towered theologian. But, is this really the nature of the Biblical texts? I don’t think it is. (And If it isn’t, how might this affect the reading, interpretation, and application of James 5:13-16 by the common person, especially if the common person is cognizant enough to realize that the ivory towered theologians don’t always agree about biblical meanings either?)

Therefore, if the Bible is not a “plain text,” it does not behoove Christians or non-Christians to suppose that it is, or to study it as if its conceptual matrix can be comprehended with something akin to the ease of a human breath. No, even with the help of God, it is more likely that meaning will still have to be hardily excavated from the ancient and dead words of Jewish prophets and Christian disciples long gone.

Since we all already know that a lot of disagreement exists about whether or not the Bible is easy to understand, I would like to suggest that we need to gain some additional discernment on this issue. What passes for discernment in Christians circles, and even in some non-Christian circles, doesn’t seem to me to be very discerning on a philosophical level, or even a spiritual one. So, I offer a few of my own deliberations, as follows:

[1] In dealing with the reading and interpreting of the Bible, if we have to make reference to information, sources, processes, and methods that exist ONLY outside the Bible, among other things which we might have to resource so as to inform ourselves about, and clarify, the meaning of a biblical text (the Letter of James included), then at that point we are no longer dealing with what can be analytically* called a “plain text.” That is, if the Biblical writers themselves have not clearly provided us sufficient information or insight by which we can clearly understand their intent and meaning, then we are not dealing with what qualifies as a “plain text.” This is not to say that some parts of the Bible don’t shed some light on other parts of the Bible. I actually think they do, but any light that is shed is only partial, not plenary. The bible came in fragments, not as a humanly planned whole—we’re not reading J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

Example: When studying the structure of the Bible, many people can identify the presence of various genres, styles, narrative types, figures of speech, symbols, cultural expressions and rhetoric, or narrative descriptions. Today, this is supposedly a common recognition among readers of the Bible, among both protagonists and antagonists. However, it does not prevent people from still reading the Bible’s various literary forms in a one dimensional, literalistic way. Why is this? Basically, the biblical texts from Genesis to Revelation do not contain much in the way of direct, or full, indications as to how we “should” interpret their meanings, or the full historical, cultural contexts in which they emerged. This is a problem, and to address it requires going OUTSIDE the bible to attempt additional understanding of its contents. Staying INSIDE isn’t enough.

* By the term “analytically” above, I mean the act of reading the Bible with the intention of applying the field of Analytical Philosophically to the words and terms under investigation, dissecting possible terminology and usage for more precise meaning and intention of usage. I don’t mean that we are simply trying to analyze a text.

[2] OR, in dealing with the reading and interpretation of the Bible, if we can recognize a phenomenon in the text that indicates to us the mediation of an outside influence or force which intervenes in our attempt to approach the bible as a “plain text,” then by that recognition, we cannot claim to consistently receive plain meanings from a “plain text,” and we have very little warrant to claim that we are able to apply its meaning to our lives. When unclear meanings might produce unclear results, we would be wise to be cautious in how we proceed in all of this. What are some phenomena that we should we cautious of as we read the Bible, even James chapter 5? I have a few ideas:

A. We should be cautious about the insertion of Verse Numbers: these were not added until the 1500s (Schultz, 2012, p. 41), and they should probably be ignored as we read the biblical texts. For sure, verse numbers are great for helping us find something in the Bible, but as Satan is represented as having done while Jesus’ spent a 40 day stint in the desert, we may think we have the right to tear out bits and pieces of Scripture and make untidy claims upon those bits and pieces. In fact, the naming and claiming of bible verses has become a favorite, Satanically inspired, Christian pastime, at least in the English world (McConnell, 1988).

Personally, I recommend that we ignore the present verse system of the bible when reading and interpreting it and not allow the verse system to truncate our awareness of the contextual thought flow of the writers. As we ignore the verses in our reading, we also need to make sure we pay attention to where a writer changes topic, where the change begins in each passage, how the topic is explained by example, analogy, or context, and where transitions are made. Granted, this is not easy for us to do; it requires study and mental work, sometimes a lot of mental work. Mistakes can be made by anyone (even yours truly) while reading just about any book, whether it be a Harry Potter book or the Letter of James. Needless to say, I don’t think I need make a spiel about Chapter numberings in the Bible, too.

B. We should be cautious of an English Bible (or a Bible in any other more modern language, like German, Spanish, etc.): To those of us living in an English cultural environment, we should see this as a substantial problem, even if does not prove to be an insurmountable one. Many of us ‘Yanks,’’ Canucks,’’ Brits,’’ Aussies,’ and ‘Kiwis,’ can look at a bible cover easily enough and notice a peculiar thing—we see the words “Holy Bible” typically printed there (Duh, Philo!). If we also open up the our English bible, what to our wandering eyes should appear, but a fine English print, and at times, annotations there. Need I say that when we do this, we have a problem? (Unless we think we should settle for the sufficiency of English because, well, “if it was good enough for Paul the Apostle, it should be good enough for us.”) If we see English in a bible, we know we’ve been intercepted already on our way to any kind of straightforward reading. Why? Because, when we see English print appearing on a page of the bible, in whichever of many English versions, this means that someone—maybe many several someones--have already taken the liberty to interpret the text for us as they translated the text from the ancient tongues. In other words, reading an English bible does not afford the assertion that we are dealing with a “plain text.” That assertion has gone bye-bye. Languages do not correspond to one another in a lock-step, thought for thought way; there are different conceptual dynamics involved with the structure and contours of each language.

All that I’ve thus far is in addition to the fact that the various ancient biblical manuscripts from which modern English translations are ‘fabricated’ can also be sorted into different “families” of ancient texts, many of which manifest numerous differences among and between themselves. Which of them was the right one? Then too, all of this comes along with the historical and clerical messiness of bible transmission through the ages, something which scholars such Bart Ehrman succinctly expose for the benefit of all bona-fide and would-be biblical literalists. The icing on the cake is that there’s more that I won’t even get into here: an assortment of hermeneutical/exegetical methods, archaeological evidences, psychological factors of mind and perception, the presence of various epistemological pretzels like the “meaning of meaning,” as well as a number of other things that could also be brought up.

Last but not least, in respect to the Letter of James, we might remember what Martin Luther, that first of the Protestant Reformers, thought about the Letter of James—that is was bogus, “an epistle of straw” (Law, 1990). It would be an understatement to say that Luther’s view of James is problematic for claiming that the book of James is a “plain text,” from a Protestant point of view?

In sum, even with all I’ve said above, I don’t want to give the impression that there is a concrete and dichotomous chasm between any person being able to extract, or not extract, an intended meaning from the biblical text. Lots of meaning, however various in its fidelity, can be extracted from the bible, some or much of which may be ‘clear enough.’ However, my main point is that, besides all of the relevant statements made INSIDE the bible about the extent to which any one can be successful in negotiation the biblical text—with the required help of God, no less--more often than not, much of the bible’s meaning will only be extracted by going OUTSIDE of its text and bringing to bear upon it twenty centuries of church tradition, along with several centuries of academic deliberation and insight that scream to be taken into account. Regardless, because the bible wasn’t written for the contemporary Plain Jane, Simple Sue, and Rural Ralph, I don’t think we should, or can, treat James 5:13-16 as a purely “plain text” with a plain and unproblematic application. James’ handful of verses on healing are no exception. [but… I could be wrong about all this, and if anyone wishes to object objectively or add to what I’ve said, please do so. I’m no Lion, so I won’t bite.]

Anyway, Dude. That’s the short version of the first piece. If you are already aware of all of this, I beg your pardon.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

References

Laws, S. (1990). James. In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. (pp. 330-331). Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International.

McConnell, D.R. (1988). A Different Gospel: A historical and biblical analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Schulz, R.L. (2012). Out of Context: How to avoid misinterpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brevity

March 30, 2015

See, the point of my discussion with Dude, however unclear and imprecise I may be in attempting to explain it, is that Christians shouldn’t get to have their cake and eat it too by insisting that the Bible is easy to understand and then scuff the heads of unbelievers because of apparent non-kosher reactions. Conversely, non-Christians shouldn’t get to say that the bible is an ‘easy’ target because it so obviously and easily fails. So, neither has much space, in my estimations, to make additional assumptions which emerge out of the idea that the bible is a so-called “plain text.”

Philo, thanks for the response. I'll back out now, since all this is way over my head. I guess god never intended for dummies like me to make it to Gloryland.

Signed,

Simple Sally

StJeff,

You're not very convincing at playing a "dummy," Jeff. You might ask the director for another role to play.

Peace

Hardly Hulk

You're a good sport, Philo, and you've tempted me to try another response.

Unbelievers have every right in the world to point out the silliness of the bible. No amount of philosophy, knowledge of ancient culture and languages, or hemming and hawing can hide the fact that the bible shouldn't be trusted as a basis for faith. If our objections are based on a simplistic understanding of things, then point out, in simple terms, how we're wrong. You must realize that our objections are actually based on the increased knowledge of the culture, language, philosophy, history of ancient times, right? The more humans have learned about the bible (and the world around us), the less reliable it has become--not the other way around.

What is unwarranted is your position, Philo. You have said elsewhere that the bible is necessary for faith. Then you present this Egghead Christianity, this gnostic approach to the bible that marginalizes all but a precious chosen few believing intellectuals, and think that it side-steps all of the unbelievers' objections to the bible. If the bible is necessary for faith, you haven't shown how that could be possible based on your approach to it. It's not convincing, and I really can't believe you've even convinced yourself of it.

Remember, Dude originally asked about a pretty straightforward passage in James. Does his question really warrant a dissertation?

Signed,

Dumb Danny

March 30, 2015

Hi Philo, refining what I wrote in #107 above, would you perhaps want to say that all the Bible transmits revelation, but what is revealed is not linguistic -- not propositions and commands -- but God's person, and we have an existential encounter with Him in scripture? That the experience of God cannot be expressed in language/transcends language?

March 30, 2015

.........Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

Peace to you too Philo.

Ok, Dude.

From what you’ve said lately, it seems to me that you’re still somewhat open to this thread, and St Jeff has expressed some interest, so I’m going to go ahead and briefly proceed to addressing more of our discussion of James 5:13-16. After a couple of posts here, I plan to head back to the ‘Nature of Faith’ thread and pickup with Ficino and StJeff.

Originally, I was going to write out a long, elaborate analysis of the verses you’ve “hollowed out from James,” but then remembered who my ‘audience’ was, as you advised me to do. So, I thought it better to shorten my response a little and deliver it in ‘pieces.’ (And I say this with a wink and smile…)

Here’s the first short piece.

In looking at the verses you’ve cited from James, I think we need to begin by exploring their meaning by acknowledging a few philosophical/philological matters that often get ignored by Christians and non-Christians alike, but which likely affect biblical interpretation. It’s particular important because the verses you’ve cited are often taken as extravagant possibilities by Christians, or viewed as metaphysically pernicious assertions through the hind-site of experiential disappointment. I’ve been privy to the latter case myself at times.

First off, in dealing with the Bible as a whole, I think we should dispense with the old adage initially proffered by the Reformers (such as Luther) that the Bible is in some way a “plain” literary entity. Today, knowing what we know about the Bible, I don’t think we can say that its ancient pages exhibit a simple message for simple persons. It should be fairly obvious to any modern reader who tries his hand at interpreting the bible that it is anything BUT a “plain text.” Unfortunately, the obviousness I speak of doesn’t seem to hold currency with many of the more Fundamental type thinkers, Christian or otherwise.

Secondly, we need to ask a question that probably doesn’t get asked because the answer may seem to be too much of a truism, and that question is: What do we mean today by the term, “plain text”? Without even attempting a complete and analytical breakdown of this term, I surmise that we can agree without too much commotion that a “plain text” is, at the very least, a literary entity that presents a simple to understood message, expressing a meaning that is cognitively graspable by even the most common person. Sure, Protestants have held a few additional notions about the “Perspicuity of Scripture,” but for the moment what I would like to focus on is a minimum denotation that is relevant to just about anyone and comports more with a more colloquial, English understanding of “plain.” If anyone here thinks differently, please advance a restatement—I’m all ears.

I want us to also be aware that if the Bible doesn’t qualify as “plain,” then various other associated Christian doctrines and dogmas might be at risk of needing further qualification. Without a “plain” Bible, Protestants today, and possibly other types of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or whatnot, will have to think twice--and maybe thrice—before becoming emotionally invested in any kind of view involving the essence of Christian life and faith. The typical Baptist and Pentecostal approach might represent something less than the best.

As we all know, there are people who still claim the Bible is an example of a “plain text.” They persist in believing that the Bible can be easily wafted in hand, flapped open on a table, surfed electronically, flipped through sporadically, and wherever one applies some eyes to the confines of its massive bulk, clear meanings will fly forth like fire-works, becoming magically discernible with only a modicum of mental effort. With this kind view, it seems that the local, uneducated farmer should be able to understand the Bible just as easily as the most tenured, ivory towered theologian. But, is this really the nature of the Biblical texts? I don’t think it is. (And If it isn’t, how might this affect the reading, interpretation, and application of James 5:13-16 by the common person, especially if the common person is cognizant enough to realize that the ivory towered theologians don’t always agree about biblical meanings either?)

Therefore, if the Bible is not a “plain text,” it does not behoove Christians or non-Christians to suppose that it is, or to study it as if its conceptual matrix can be comprehended with something akin to the ease of a human breath. No, even with the help of God, it is more likely that meaning will still have to be hardily excavated from the ancient and dead words of Jewish prophets and Christian disciples long gone.

Since we all already know that a lot of disagreement exists about whether or not the Bible is easy to understand, I would like to suggest that we need to gain some additional discernment on this issue. What passes for discernment in Christians circles, and even in some non-Christian circles, doesn’t seem to me to be very discerning on a philosophical level, or even a spiritual one. So, I offer a few of my own deliberations, as follows:

[1] In dealing with the reading and interpreting of the Bible, if we have to make reference to information, sources, processes, and methods that exist ONLY outside the Bible, among other things which we might have to resource so as to inform ourselves about, and clarify, the meaning of a biblical text (the Letter of James included), then at that point we are no longer dealing with what can be analytically* called a “plain text.” That is, if the Biblical writers themselves have not clearly provided us sufficient information or insight by which we can clearly understand their intent and meaning, then we are not dealing with what qualifies as a “plain text.” This is not to say that some parts of the Bible don’t shed some light on other parts of the Bible. I actually think they do, but any light that is shed is only partial, not plenary. The bible came in fragments, not as a humanly planned whole—we’re not reading J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

Example: When studying the structure of the Bible, many people can identify the presence of various genres, styles, narrative types, figures of speech, symbols, cultural expressions and rhetoric, or narrative descriptions. Today, this is supposedly a common recognition among readers of the Bible, among both protagonists and antagonists. However, it does not prevent people from still reading the Bible’s various literary forms in a one dimensional, literalistic way. Why is this? Basically, the biblical texts from Genesis to Revelation do not contain much in the way of direct, or full, indications as to how we “should” interpret their meanings, or the full historical, cultural contexts in which they emerged. This is a problem, and to address it requires going OUTSIDE the bible to attempt additional understanding of its contents. Staying INSIDE isn’t enough.

* By the term “analytically” above, I mean the act of reading the Bible with the intention of applying the field of Analytical Philosophically to the words and terms under investigation, dissecting possible terminology and usage for more precise meaning and intention of usage. I don’t mean that we are simply trying to analyze a text.

[2] OR, in dealing with the reading and interpretation of the Bible, if we can recognize a phenomenon in the text that indicates to us the mediation of an outside influence or force which intervenes in our attempt to approach the bible as a “plain text,” then by that recognition, we cannot claim to consistently receive plain meanings from a “plain text,” and we have very little warrant to claim that we are able to apply its meaning to our lives. When unclear meanings might produce unclear results, we would be wise to be cautious in how we proceed in all of this. What are some phenomena that we should we cautious of as we read the Bible, even James chapter 5? I have a few ideas:

A. We should be cautious about the insertion of Verse Numbers: these were not added until the 1500s (Schultz, 2012, p. 41), and they should probably be ignored as we read the biblical texts. For sure, verse numbers are great for helping us find something in the Bible, but as Satan is represented as having done while Jesus’ spent a 40 day stint in the desert, we may think we have the right to tear out bits and pieces of Scripture and make untidy claims upon those bits and pieces. In fact, the naming and claiming of bible verses has become a favorite, Satanically inspired, Christian pastime, at least in the English world (McConnell, 1988).

Personally, I recommend that we ignore the present verse system of the bible when reading and interpreting it and not allow the verse system to truncate our awareness of the contextual thought flow of the writers. As we ignore the verses in our reading, we also need to make sure we pay attention to where a writer changes topic, where the change begins in each passage, how the topic is explained by example, analogy, or context, and where transitions are made. Granted, this is not easy for us to do; it requires study and mental work, sometimes a lot of mental work. Mistakes can be made by anyone (even yours truly) while reading just about any book, whether it be a Harry Potter book or the Letter of James. Needless to say, I don’t think I need make a spiel about Chapter numberings in the Bible, too.

B. We should be cautious of an English Bible (or a Bible in any other more modern language, like German, Spanish, etc.): To those of us living in an English cultural environment, we should see this as a substantial problem, even if does not prove to be an insurmountable one. Many of us ‘Yanks,’’ Canucks,’’ Brits,’’ Aussies,’ and ‘Kiwis,’ can look at a bible cover easily enough and notice a peculiar thing—we see the words “Holy Bible” typically printed there (Duh, Philo!). If we also open up the our English bible, what to our wandering eyes should appear, but a fine English print, and at times, annotations there. Need I say that when we do this, we have a problem? (Unless we think we should settle for the sufficiency of English because, well, “if it was good enough for Paul the Apostle, it should be good enough for us.”) If we see English in a bible, we know we’ve been intercepted already on our way to any kind of straightforward reading. Why? Because, when we see English print appearing on a page of the bible, in whichever of many English versions, this means that someone—maybe many several someones--have already taken the liberty to interpret the text for us as they translated the text from the ancient tongues. In other words, reading an English bible does not afford the assertion that we are dealing with a “plain text.” That assertion has gone bye-bye. Languages do not correspond to one another in a lock-step, thought for thought way; there are different conceptual dynamics involved with the structure and contours of each language.

All that I’ve thus far is in addition to the fact that the various ancient biblical manuscripts from which modern English translations are ‘fabricated’ can also be sorted into different “families” of ancient texts, many of which manifest numerous differences among and between themselves. Which of them was the right one? Then too, all of this comes along with the historical and clerical messiness of bible transmission through the ages, something which scholars such Bart Ehrman succinctly expose for the benefit of all bona-fide and would-be biblical literalists. The icing on the cake is that there’s more that I won’t even get into here: an assortment of hermeneutical/exegetical methods, archaeological evidences, psychological factors of mind and perception, the presence of various epistemological pretzels like the “meaning of meaning,” as well as a number of other things that could also be brought up.

Last but not least, in respect to the Letter of James, we might remember what Martin Luther, that first of the Protestant Reformers, thought about the Letter of James—that is was bogus, “an epistle of straw” (Law, 1990). It would be an understatement to say that Luther’s view of James is problematic for claiming that the book of James is a “plain text,” from a Protestant point of view?

In sum, even with all I’ve said above, I don’t want to give the impression that there is a concrete and dichotomous chasm between any person being able to extract, or not extract, an intended meaning from the biblical text. Lots of meaning, however various in its fidelity, can be extracted from the bible, some or much of which may be ‘clear enough.’ However, my main point is that, besides all of the relevant statements made INSIDE the bible about the extent to which any one can be successful in negotiation the biblical text—with the required help of God, no less--more often than not, much of the bible’s meaning will only be extracted by going OUTSIDE of its text and bringing to bear upon it twenty centuries of church tradition, along with several centuries of academic deliberation and insight that scream to be taken into account. Regardless, because the bible wasn’t written for the contemporary Plain Jane, Simple Sue, and Rural Ralph, I don’t think we should, or can, treat James 5:13-16 as a purely “plain text” with a plain and unproblematic application. James’ handful of verses on healing are no exception. [but… I could be wrong about all this, and if anyone wishes to object objectively or add to what I’ve said, please do so. I’m no Lion, so I won’t bite.]

Anyway, Dude. That’s the short version of the first piece. If you are already aware of all of this, I beg your pardon.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

References

Laws, S. (1990). James. In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. (pp. 330-331). Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International.

McConnell, D.R. (1988). A Different Gospel: A historical and biblical analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Schulz, R.L. (2012). Out of Context: How to avoid misinterpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brevity

BAA, here's the short version of 2PhiloVoid's post:

'That passage from James does not mean what you think it means. It means what I (Philo) thinks it means, but I don't have time now to tell you what it means.'

March 30, 2015

BAA, here's the short version of 2PhiloVoid's post:

'That passage from James does not mean what you think it means. It means what I (Philo) thinks it means, but I don't have time now to tell you what it means.'

I'm surprised it didn't take 100 paragraphs to say all that.

March 30, 2015

.........Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

Peace to you too Philo.

(snip)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brevity

BAA, here's the short version of 2PhiloVoid's post:

'That passage from James does not mean what you think it means. It means what I (Philo) thinks it means, but I don't have time now to tell you what it means.'

Ah thanks for the concise summary, sdelsolray.

.

Years ago I might have taken issue with 2Philovoid over this or that - but those days are long over.

Nowadays I just decapitate the Christian belief system at Genesis 1 : 1, using cosmology.

Everything else is just... crap.

Succinctly yours, BAA.

March 31, 2015

.........Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

Peace to you too Philo.

Ok, Dude.

From what you’ve said lately, it seems to me that you’re still somewhat open to this thread, and St Jeff has expressed some interest, so I’m going to go ahead and briefly proceed to addressing more of our discussion of James 5:13-16. After a couple of posts here, I plan to head back to the ‘Nature of Faith’ thread and pickup with Ficino and StJeff.

Originally, I was going to write out a long, elaborate analysis of the verses you’ve “hollowed out from James,” but then remembered who my ‘audience’ was, as you advised me to do. So, I thought it better to shorten my response a little and deliver it in ‘pieces.’ (And I say this with a wink and smile…)

Here’s the first short piece.

In looking at the verses you’ve cited from James, I think we need to begin by exploring their meaning by acknowledging a few philosophical/philological matters that often get ignored by Christians and non-Christians alike, but which likely affect biblical interpretation. It’s particular important because the verses you’ve cited are often taken as extravagant possibilities by Christians, or viewed as metaphysically pernicious assertions through the hind-site of experiential disappointment. I’ve been privy to the latter case myself at times.

First off, in dealing with the Bible as a whole, I think we should dispense with the old adage initially proffered by the Reformers (such as Luther) that the Bible is in some way a “plain” literary entity. Today, knowing what we know about the Bible, I don’t think we can say that its ancient pages exhibit a simple message for simple persons. It should be fairly obvious to any modern reader who tries his hand at interpreting the bible that it is anything BUT a “plain text.” Unfortunately, the obviousness I speak of doesn’t seem to hold currency with many of the more Fundamental type thinkers, Christian or otherwise.

Secondly, we need to ask a question that probably doesn’t get asked because the answer may seem to be too much of a truism, and that question is: What do we mean today by the term, “plain text”? Without even attempting a complete and analytical breakdown of this term, I surmise that we can agree without too much commotion that a “plain text” is, at the very least, a literary entity that presents a simple to understood message, expressing a meaning that is cognitively graspable by even the most common person. Sure, Protestants have held a few additional notions about the “Perspicuity of Scripture,” but for the moment what I would like to focus on is a minimum denotation that is relevant to just about anyone and comports more with a more colloquial, English understanding of “plain.” If anyone here thinks differently, please advance a restatement—I’m all ears.

I want us to also be aware that if the Bible doesn’t qualify as “plain,” then various other associated Christian doctrines and dogmas might be at risk of needing further qualification. Without a “plain” Bible, Protestants today, and possibly other types of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or whatnot, will have to think twice--and maybe thrice—before becoming emotionally invested in any kind of view involving the essence of Christian life and faith. The typical Baptist and Pentecostal approach might represent something less than the best.

As we all know, there are people who still claim the Bible is an example of a “plain text.” They persist in believing that the Bible can be easily wafted in hand, flapped open on a table, surfed electronically, flipped through sporadically, and wherever one applies some eyes to the confines of its massive bulk, clear meanings will fly forth like fire-works, becoming magically discernible with only a modicum of mental effort. With this kind view, it seems that the local, uneducated farmer should be able to understand the Bible just as easily as the most tenured, ivory towered theologian. But, is this really the nature of the Biblical texts? I don’t think it is. (And If it isn’t, how might this affect the reading, interpretation, and application of James 5:13-16 by the common person, especially if the common person is cognizant enough to realize that the ivory towered theologians don’t always agree about biblical meanings either?)

Therefore, if the Bible is not a “plain text,” it does not behoove Christians or non-Christians to suppose that it is, or to study it as if its conceptual matrix can be comprehended with something akin to the ease of a human breath. No, even with the help of God, it is more likely that meaning will still have to be hardily excavated from the ancient and dead words of Jewish prophets and Christian disciples long gone.

Since we all already know that a lot of disagreement exists about whether or not the Bible is easy to understand, I would like to suggest that we need to gain some additional discernment on this issue. What passes for discernment in Christians circles, and even in some non-Christian circles, doesn’t seem to me to be very discerning on a philosophical level, or even a spiritual one. So, I offer a few of my own deliberations, as follows:

[1] In dealing with the reading and interpreting of the Bible, if we have to make reference to information, sources, processes, and methods that exist ONLY outside the Bible, among other things which we might have to resource so as to inform ourselves about, and clarify, the meaning of a biblical text (the Letter of James included), then at that point we are no longer dealing with what can be analytically* called a “plain text.” That is, if the Biblical writers themselves have not clearly provided us sufficient information or insight by which we can clearly understand their intent and meaning, then we are not dealing with what qualifies as a “plain text.” This is not to say that some parts of the Bible don’t shed some light on other parts of the Bible. I actually think they do, but any light that is shed is only partial, not plenary. The bible came in fragments, not as a humanly planned whole—we’re not reading J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

Example: When studying the structure of the Bible, many people can identify the presence of various genres, styles, narrative types, figures of speech, symbols, cultural expressions and rhetoric, or narrative descriptions. Today, this is supposedly a common recognition among readers of the Bible, among both protagonists and antagonists. However, it does not prevent people from still reading the Bible’s various literary forms in a one dimensional, literalistic way. Why is this? Basically, the biblical texts from Genesis to Revelation do not contain much in the way of direct, or full, indications as to how we “should” interpret their meanings, or the full historical, cultural contexts in which they emerged. This is a problem, and to address it requires going OUTSIDE the bible to attempt additional understanding of its contents. Staying INSIDE isn’t enough.

* By the term “analytically” above, I mean the act of reading the Bible with the intention of applying the field of Analytical Philosophically to the words and terms under investigation, dissecting possible terminology and usage for more precise meaning and intention of usage. I don’t mean that we are simply trying to analyze a text.

[2] OR, in dealing with the reading and interpretation of the Bible, if we can recognize a phenomenon in the text that indicates to us the mediation of an outside influence or force which intervenes in our attempt to approach the bible as a “plain text,” then by that recognition, we cannot claim to consistently receive plain meanings from a “plain text,” and we have very little warrant to claim that we are able to apply its meaning to our lives. When unclear meanings might produce unclear results, we would be wise to be cautious in how we proceed in all of this. What are some phenomena that we should we cautious of as we read the Bible, even James chapter 5? I have a few ideas:

A. We should be cautious about the insertion of Verse Numbers: these were not added until the 1500s (Schultz, 2012, p. 41), and they should probably be ignored as we read the biblical texts. For sure, verse numbers are great for helping us find something in the Bible, but as Satan is represented as having done while Jesus’ spent a 40 day stint in the desert, we may think we have the right to tear out bits and pieces of Scripture and make untidy claims upon those bits and pieces. In fact, the naming and claiming of bible verses has become a favorite, Satanically inspired, Christian pastime, at least in the English world (McConnell, 1988).

Personally, I recommend that we ignore the present verse system of the bible when reading and interpreting it and not allow the verse system to truncate our awareness of the contextual thought flow of the writers. As we ignore the verses in our reading, we also need to make sure we pay attention to where a writer changes topic, where the change begins in each passage, how the topic is explained by example, analogy, or context, and where transitions are made. Granted, this is not easy for us to do; it requires study and mental work, sometimes a lot of mental work. Mistakes can be made by anyone (even yours truly) while reading just about any book, whether it be a Harry Potter book or the Letter of James. Needless to say, I don’t think I need make a spiel about Chapter numberings in the Bible, too.

B. We should be cautious of an English Bible (or a Bible in any other more modern language, like German, Spanish, etc.): To those of us living in an English cultural environment, we should see this as a substantial problem, even if does not prove to be an insurmountable one. Many of us ‘Yanks,’’ Canucks,’’ Brits,’’ Aussies,’ and ‘Kiwis,’ can look at a bible cover easily enough and notice a peculiar thing—we see the words “Holy Bible” typically printed there (Duh, Philo!). If we also open up the our English bible, what to our wandering eyes should appear, but a fine English print, and at times, annotations there. Need I say that when we do this, we have a problem? (Unless we think we should settle for the sufficiency of English because, well, “if it was good enough for Paul the Apostle, it should be good enough for us.”) If we see English in a bible, we know we’ve been intercepted already on our way to any kind of straightforward reading. Why? Because, when we see English print appearing on a page of the bible, in whichever of many English versions, this means that someone—maybe many several someones--have already taken the liberty to interpret the text for us as they translated the text from the ancient tongues. In other words, reading an English bible does not afford the assertion that we are dealing with a “plain text.” That assertion has gone bye-bye. Languages do not correspond to one another in a lock-step, thought for thought way; there are different conceptual dynamics involved with the structure and contours of each language.

All that I’ve thus far is in addition to the fact that the various ancient biblical manuscripts from which modern English translations are ‘fabricated’ can also be sorted into different “families” of ancient texts, many of which manifest numerous differences among and between themselves. Which of them was the right one? Then too, all of this comes along with the historical and clerical messiness of bible transmission through the ages, something which scholars such Bart Ehrman succinctly expose for the benefit of all bona-fide and would-be biblical literalists. The icing on the cake is that there’s more that I won’t even get into here: an assortment of hermeneutical/exegetical methods, archaeological evidences, psychological factors of mind and perception, the presence of various epistemological pretzels like the “meaning of meaning,” as well as a number of other things that could also be brought up.

Last but not least, in respect to the Letter of James, we might remember what Martin Luther, that first of the Protestant Reformers, thought about the Letter of James—that is was bogus, “an epistle of straw” (Law, 1990). It would be an understatement to say that Luther’s view of James is problematic for claiming that the book of James is a “plain text,” from a Protestant point of view?

In sum, even with all I’ve said above, I don’t want to give the impression that there is a concrete and dichotomous chasm between any person being able to extract, or not extract, an intended meaning from the biblical text. Lots of meaning, however various in its fidelity, can be extracted from the bible, some or much of which may be ‘clear enough.’ However, my main point is that, besides all of the relevant statements made INSIDE the bible about the extent to which any one can be successful in negotiation the biblical text—with the required help of God, no less--more often than not, much of the bible’s meaning will only be extracted by going OUTSIDE of its text and bringing to bear upon it twenty centuries of church tradition, along with several centuries of academic deliberation and insight that scream to be taken into account. Regardless, because the bible wasn’t written for the contemporary Plain Jane, Simple Sue, and Rural Ralph, I don’t think we should, or can, treat James 5:13-16 as a purely “plain text” with a plain and unproblematic application. James’ handful of verses on healing are no exception. [but… I could be wrong about all this, and if anyone wishes to object objectively or add to what I’ve said, please do so. I’m no Lion, so I won’t bite.]

Anyway, Dude. That’s the short version of the first piece. If you are already aware of all of this, I beg your pardon.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

References

Laws, S. (1990). James. In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. (pp. 330-331). Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International.

McConnell, D.R. (1988). A Different Gospel: A historical and biblical analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Schulz, R.L. (2012). Out of Context: How to avoid misinterpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Philo, when I suggest that you should write to your audience, please don't think that I mean you have to dumb down your thoughts. There are many many people on this forum that are far more smarter than I am, and I'm sure that you are one of them. What I mean is that you need to consider your surroundings and not address your comments to some one who wishes to discuss the things we are discussing as if you are writing a thesis for a doctrinal degree.

You run the risk of being boring, or falling into the "too long; didn't read" camp among most, and your thoughts and answers won't be read or understood.

In journalism, isn't it an axiom that reports and articles should be written on a level somewhere between what we could call a sixth grade to an eighth grade level? Less than that, and your headline might read, "See crook. Crook stole. See crook run? See policeman chase". More than that, and you are discussing the molecular level of the elasticity of the crooks shoes verses the cops shoes, and how that might effect the chase. Isn't it better that you say, "A robber held up a gas station and then ran off on foot. The police gave chase".

You see, I'm saying write to your audience because you don't know who your audience is, but you can assume that in most cases your audience is only interested in the subject at hand, and not in any extraneous information, and that the bulk of your audience most likely falls within the spectrum of average.

Think what you will about that, Philo, but if you don't want your thoughts to be wasted here, you should consider these things. By saying that you should remember to write to your audience, I wasn't slamming your style at all, nor was I slamming your audience. I'm only trying to explain to you how to best convey your message. Writing to your audience doesn't mean that you should hold yourself back, it means that you should cut to the chase. Even an idiot-savant like me (albeit without that pesky savant stuff) recognizes this. You certainly do too.

Herein lies another example. You want me to taste your spaghetti recipe. I agree. While I am twirling the spaghetti around my fork, you add gasoline and ash tray dust to the mix. Then you add, before the fork gets to my mouth, the farts of a thousand gnats and an old gym sock. Still, having promised that I would taste your recipe and give you my honest opinion of the taste, I take a bite. After I swallow, you ask me, "So, what do you think of my spaghetti?"

I guess that's all I have to say right now about writing to your audience. Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the book of James in the Bible. Let's take the chapter and verse numbers away, and see if it says anything different.

Hmmnnn...nope.

It either works or it doesn't. It's either real or it ain't. It's either true or it isn't.

I do dare say that without the Bible as we have it, in English no less, you most likely wouldn't have any idea of Jesus or Christianity. If Christianity doesn't work out for you, maybe you should consider Islam. It has a Holy Book, but also many centuries of tradition. Or Judaism. It has a Holy Book and more centuries of tradition than Christianity and Islam combined.

This is a question that doesn't require a book be written, Philo. A simple yes or no will suffice. Do you believe the Bible or not? Is it all the inspired Word of God or not? You can't spend your entire life like a rabbit hiding in a thicket of many branches. You have to come out sometime, and see this;

"And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 24:51.

Oops! Silly me, I meant this...

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

In my next post, I will discuss why our moms both fell dead in the midst of prayer and hopefulness and faith. Mine at sixty one years old, having suffered a life of ever increasing pain and fear. Or not, Philo, because the ball is in your court, as it were.

March 31, 2015

Herein lies another example. You want me to taste your spaghetti recipe. I agree. While I am twirling the spaghetti around my fork, you add gasoline and ash tray dust to the mix. Then you add, before the fork gets to my mouth, the farts of a thousand gnats and an old gym sock. Still, having promised that I would taste your recipe and give you my honest opinion of the taste, I take a bite. After I swallow, you ask me, "So, what do you think of my spaghetti?"

I come for the discussions, but I stay for the imagery. That's just beautiful.

April 4, 2015

.........Contrast that with Biblegod's impeccable reasoning which makes him come to Earth to see what's going on, and when he sees that people are building a big tower that will reach Heaven, he gets scared and makes some of them speak French.

In all of your thinking, Philo, don't forget to...think.

Peace to you too Philo.

Ok, Dude.

From what you’ve said lately, it seems to me that you’re still somewhat open to this thread, and St Jeff has expressed some interest, so I’m going to go ahead and briefly proceed to addressing more of our discussion of James 5:13-16. After a couple of posts here, I plan to head back to the ‘Nature of Faith’ thread and pickup with Ficino and StJeff.

Originally, I was going to write out a long, elaborate analysis of the verses you’ve “hollowed out from James,” but then remembered who my ‘audience’ was, as you advised me to do. So, I thought it better to shorten my response a little and deliver it in ‘pieces.’ (And I say this with a wink and smile…)

Here’s the first short piece.

In looking at the verses you’ve cited from James, I think we need to begin by exploring their meaning by acknowledging a few philosophical/philological matters that often get ignored by Christians and non-Christians alike, but which likely affect biblical interpretation. It’s particular important because the verses you’ve cited are often taken as extravagant possibilities by Christians, or viewed as metaphysically pernicious assertions through the hind-site of experiential disappointment. I’ve been privy to the latter case myself at times.

First off, in dealing with the Bible as a whole, I think we should dispense with the old adage initially proffered by the Reformers (such as Luther) that the Bible is in some way a “plain” literary entity. Today, knowing what we know about the Bible, I don’t think we can say that its ancient pages exhibit a simple message for simple persons. It should be fairly obvious to any modern reader who tries his hand at interpreting the bible that it is anything BUT a “plain text.” Unfortunately, the obviousness I speak of doesn’t seem to hold currency with many of the more Fundamental type thinkers, Christian or otherwise.

Secondly, we need to ask a question that probably doesn’t get asked because the answer may seem to be too much of a truism, and that question is: What do we mean today by the term, “plain text”? Without even attempting a complete and analytical breakdown of this term, I surmise that we can agree without too much commotion that a “plain text” is, at the very least, a literary entity that presents a simple to understood message, expressing a meaning that is cognitively graspable by even the most common person. Sure, Protestants have held a few additional notions about the “Perspicuity of Scripture,” but for the moment what I would like to focus on is a minimum denotation that is relevant to just about anyone and comports more with a more colloquial, English understanding of “plain.” If anyone here thinks differently, please advance a restatement—I’m all ears.

I want us to also be aware that if the Bible doesn’t qualify as “plain,” then various other associated Christian doctrines and dogmas might be at risk of needing further qualification. Without a “plain” Bible, Protestants today, and possibly other types of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or whatnot, will have to think twice--and maybe thrice—before becoming emotionally invested in any kind of view involving the essence of Christian life and faith. The typical Baptist and Pentecostal approach might represent something less than the best.

As we all know, there are people who still claim the Bible is an example of a “plain text.” They persist in believing that the Bible can be easily wafted in hand, flapped open on a table, surfed electronically, flipped through sporadically, and wherever one applies some eyes to the confines of its massive bulk, clear meanings will fly forth like fire-works, becoming magically discernible with only a modicum of mental effort. With this kind view, it seems that the local, uneducated farmer should be able to understand the Bible just as easily as the most tenured, ivory towered theologian. But, is this really the nature of the Biblical texts? I don’t think it is. (And If it isn’t, how might this affect the reading, interpretation, and application of James 5:13-16 by the common person, especially if the common person is cognizant enough to realize that the ivory towered theologians don’t always agree about biblical meanings either?)

Therefore, if the Bible is not a “plain text,” it does not behoove Christians or non-Christians to suppose that it is, or to study it as if its conceptual matrix can be comprehended with something akin to the ease of a human breath. No, even with the help of God, it is more likely that meaning will still have to be hardily excavated from the ancient and dead words of Jewish prophets and Christian disciples long gone.

Since we all already know that a lot of disagreement exists about whether or not the Bible is easy to understand, I would like to suggest that we need to gain some additional discernment on this issue. What passes for discernment in Christians circles, and even in some non-Christian circles, doesn’t seem to me to be very discerning on a philosophical level, or even a spiritual one. So, I offer a few of my own deliberations, as follows:

[1] In dealing with the reading and interpreting of the Bible, if we have to make reference to information, sources, processes, and methods that exist ONLY outside the Bible, among other things which we might have to resource so as to inform ourselves about, and clarify, the meaning of a biblical text (the Letter of James included), then at that point we are no longer dealing with what can be analytically* called a “plain text.” That is, if the Biblical writers themselves have not clearly provided us sufficient information or insight by which we can clearly understand their intent and meaning, then we are not dealing with what qualifies as a “plain text.” This is not to say that some parts of the Bible don’t shed some light on other parts of the Bible. I actually think they do, but any light that is shed is only partial, not plenary. The bible came in fragments, not as a humanly planned whole—we’re not reading J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.

Example: When studying the structure of the Bible, many people can identify the presence of various genres, styles, narrative types, figures of speech, symbols, cultural expressions and rhetoric, or narrative descriptions. Today, this is supposedly a common recognition among readers of the Bible, among both protagonists and antagonists. However, it does not prevent people from still reading the Bible’s various literary forms in a one dimensional, literalistic way. Why is this? Basically, the biblical texts from Genesis to Revelation do not contain much in the way of direct, or full, indications as to how we “should” interpret their meanings, or the full historical, cultural contexts in which they emerged. This is a problem, and to address it requires going OUTSIDE the bible to attempt additional understanding of its contents. Staying INSIDE isn’t enough.

* By the term “analytically” above, I mean the act of reading the Bible with the intention of applying the field of Analytical Philosophically to the words and terms under investigation, dissecting possible terminology and usage for more precise meaning and intention of usage. I don’t mean that we are simply trying to analyze a text.

[2] OR, in dealing with the reading and interpretation of the Bible, if we can recognize a phenomenon in the text that indicates to us the mediation of an outside influence or force which intervenes in our attempt to approach the bible as a “plain text,” then by that recognition, we cannot claim to consistently receive plain meanings from a “plain text,” and we have very little warrant to claim that we are able to apply its meaning to our lives. When unclear meanings might produce unclear results, we would be wise to be cautious in how we proceed in all of this. What are some phenomena that we should we cautious of as we read the Bible, even James chapter 5? I have a few ideas:

A. We should be cautious about the insertion of Verse Numbers: these were not added until the 1500s (Schultz, 2012, p. 41), and they should probably be ignored as we read the biblical texts. For sure, verse numbers are great for helping us find something in the Bible, but as Satan is represented as having done while Jesus’ spent a 40 day stint in the desert, we may think we have the right to tear out bits and pieces of Scripture and make untidy claims upon those bits and pieces. In fact, the naming and claiming of bible verses has become a favorite, Satanically inspired, Christian pastime, at least in the English world (McConnell, 1988).

Personally, I recommend that we ignore the present verse system of the bible when reading and interpreting it and not allow the verse system to truncate our awareness of the contextual thought flow of the writers. As we ignore the verses in our reading, we also need to make sure we pay attention to where a writer changes topic, where the change begins in each passage, how the topic is explained by example, analogy, or context, and where transitions are made. Granted, this is not easy for us to do; it requires study and mental work, sometimes a lot of mental work. Mistakes can be made by anyone (even yours truly) while reading just about any book, whether it be a Harry Potter book or the Letter of James. Needless to say, I don’t think I need make a spiel about Chapter numberings in the Bible, too.

B. We should be cautious of an English Bible (or a Bible in any other more modern language, like German, Spanish, etc.): To those of us living in an English cultural environment, we should see this as a substantial problem, even if does not prove to be an insurmountable one. Many of us ‘Yanks,’’ Canucks,’’ Brits,’’ Aussies,’ and ‘Kiwis,’ can look at a bible cover easily enough and notice a peculiar thing—we see the words “Holy Bible” typically printed there (Duh, Philo!). If we also open up the our English bible, what to our wandering eyes should appear, but a fine English print, and at times, annotations there. Need I say that when we do this, we have a problem? (Unless we think we should settle for the sufficiency of English because, well, “if it was good enough for Paul the Apostle, it should be good enough for us.”) If we see English in a bible, we know we’ve been intercepted already on our way to any kind of straightforward reading. Why? Because, when we see English print appearing on a page of the bible, in whichever of many English versions, this means that someone—maybe many several someones--have already taken the liberty to interpret the text for us as they translated the text from the ancient tongues. In other words, reading an English bible does not afford the assertion that we are dealing with a “plain text.” That assertion has gone bye-bye. Languages do not correspond to one another in a lock-step, thought for thought way; there are different conceptual dynamics involved with the structure and contours of each language.

All that I’ve thus far is in addition to the fact that the various ancient biblical manuscripts from which modern English translations are ‘fabricated’ can also be sorted into different “families” of ancient texts, many of which manifest numerous differences among and between themselves. Which of them was the right one? Then too, all of this comes along with the historical and clerical messiness of bible transmission through the ages, something which scholars such Bart Ehrman succinctly expose for the benefit of all bona-fide and would-be biblical literalists. The icing on the cake is that there’s more that I won’t even get into here: an assortment of hermeneutical/exegetical methods, archaeological evidences, psychological factors of mind and perception, the presence of various epistemological pretzels like the “meaning of meaning,” as well as a number of other things that could also be brought up.

Last but not least, in respect to the Letter of James, we might remember what Martin Luther, that first of the Protestant Reformers, thought about the Letter of James—that is was bogus, “an epistle of straw” (Law, 1990). It would be an understatement to say that Luther’s view of James is problematic for claiming that the book of James is a “plain text,” from a Protestant point of view?

In sum, even with all I’ve said above, I don’t want to give the impression that there is a concrete and dichotomous chasm between any person being able to extract, or not extract, an intended meaning from the biblical text. Lots of meaning, however various in its fidelity, can be extracted from the bible, some or much of which may be ‘clear enough.’ However, my main point is that, besides all of the relevant statements made INSIDE the bible about the extent to which any one can be successful in negotiation the biblical text—with the required help of God, no less--more often than not, much of the bible’s meaning will only be extracted by going OUTSIDE of its text and bringing to bear upon it twenty centuries of church tradition, along with several centuries of academic deliberation and insight that scream to be taken into account. Regardless, because the bible wasn’t written for the contemporary Plain Jane, Simple Sue, and Rural Ralph, I don’t think we should, or can, treat James 5:13-16 as a purely “plain text” with a plain and unproblematic application. James’ handful of verses on healing are no exception. [but… I could be wrong about all this, and if anyone wishes to object objectively or add to what I’ve said, please do so. I’m no Lion, so I won’t bite.]

Anyway, Dude. That’s the short version of the first piece. If you are already aware of all of this, I beg your pardon.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

References

Laws, S. (1990). James. In A Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. (pp. 330-331). Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International.

McConnell, D.R. (1988). A Different Gospel: A historical and biblical analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Schulz, R.L. (2012). Out of Context: How to avoid misinterpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Philo, when I suggest that you should write to your audience, please don't think that I mean you have to dumb down your thoughts. There are many many people on this forum that are far more smarter than I am, and I'm sure that you are one of them. What I mean is that you need to consider your surroundings and not address your comments to some one who wishes to discuss the things we are discussing as if you are writing a thesis for a doctrinal degree.

You run the risk of being boring, or falling into the "too long; didn't read" camp among most, and your thoughts and answers won't be read or understood.

In journalism, isn't it an axiom that reports and articles should be written on a level somewhere between what we could call a sixth grade to an eighth grade level? Less than that, and your headline might read, "See crook. Crook stole. See crook run? See policeman chase". More than that, and you are discussing the molecular level of the elasticity of the crooks shoes verses the cops shoes, and how that might effect the chase. Isn't it better that you say, "A robber held up a gas station and then ran off on foot. The police gave chase".

You see, I'm saying write to your audience because you don't know who your audience is, but you can assume that in most cases your audience is only interested in the subject at hand, and not in any extraneous information, and that the bulk of your audience most likely falls within the spectrum of average.

Think what you will about that, Philo, but if you don't want your thoughts to be wasted here, you should consider these things. By saying that you should remember to write to your audience, I wasn't slamming your style at all, nor was I slamming your audience. I'm only trying to explain to you how to best convey your message. Writing to your audience doesn't mean that you should hold yourself back, it means that you should cut to the chase. Even an idiot-savant like me (albeit without that pesky savant stuff) recognizes this. You certainly do too.

Herein lies another example. You want me to taste your spaghetti recipe. I agree. While I am twirling the spaghetti around my fork, you add gasoline and ash tray dust to the mix. Then you add, before the fork gets to my mouth, the farts of a thousand gnats and an old gym sock. Still, having promised that I would taste your recipe and give you my honest opinion of the taste, I take a bite. After I swallow, you ask me, "So, what do you think of my spaghetti?"

I guess that's all I have to say right now about writing to your audience. Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the book of James in the Bible. Let's take the chapter and verse numbers away, and see if it says anything different.

Hmmnnn...nope.

It either works or it doesn't. It's either real or it ain't. It's either true or it isn't.

I do dare say that without the Bible as we have it, in English no less, you most likely wouldn't have any idea of Jesus or Christianity. If Christianity doesn't work out for you, maybe you should consider Islam. It has a Holy Book, but also many centuries of tradition. Or Judaism. It has a Holy Book and more centuries of tradition than Christianity and Islam combined.

This is a question that doesn't require a book be written, Philo. A simple yes or no will suffice. Do you believe the Bible or not? Is it all the inspired Word of God or not? You can't spend your entire life like a rabbit hiding in a thicket of many branches. You have to come out sometime, and see this;

"And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt 24:51.

Oops! Silly me, I meant this...

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Hebrews 4:12

In my next post, I will discuss why our moms both fell dead in the midst of prayer and hopefulness and faith. Mine at sixty one years old, having suffered a life of ever increasing pain and fear. Or not, Philo, because the ball is in your court, as it were.

Alright, Dude. Maybe it’s just the effusive effects of the ash and stench in the Stinky Spaghetti I’ve been serving up, but whatever it is, it seems I need to clear the air of my mismanaged communication.

First, I understand and appreciate your effort to clarify what it means to “keep one’s audience in mind.” Your response to my apparent failures is helpful, and you’ve been affable and practical in pointing out that anything other than “cutting to the chase” in this forum will probably just get me ignored. So, thank you for the advice. Because of that, I’m also learning to stay away from the use of cheap, ironic humor in this venue; it seems to be a liability here.

I agree that somewhere along the way while writing my previous, elongated post (#97), I overstepped the bounds of appropriateness for the Lion’s Den. I regret that action since I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, not to mention my own. However, there is one caveat--I intended for that post to be a wee bit longer, and I made it that way in the hope that I could emphasize a few of the complexities present within the interpretive processes which should be addressed when reading ancient, foreign books like the Bible, or any book for that matter. Surely, we can agree that tracks have to be firmly laid down before a train can be run over any given ground, and our traversing the bible is no different.

To my chagrin, I’m realizing more and more all the time that people just don’t care one way or the other about how aspects of Communication Theory (among other things) play a real part in reading and applying a written work like the Bible. From my own experience, it seems this lack of concern is prevalent among a lot of people, whether they’re Christian or Un-Christian. At times, this really bugs me, but I realize that some of my own feelings about this are my own “personal problem,” and I apparently have more work to do on not being surprised by it or allowing myself to wonder “why?” If I’m right about the Bible’s complexity, then reasonably, I can’t necessarily fault people for the ambivalence they might have to it.

Now, Dude.…about this “cutting to the chase” stuff. I have a difficult time seeing just where the line is to be drawn between “cutting to the chase” and just being plain “curt” about things. But, here it goes…

In assessing the meaning of James 5:13-16 as it relates to Christian prayer and healing, your choice of these specific verses is mostly arbitrary, and appears to be done without recourse or regard to hermeneutic practice and/or communication theory. Alternatively, I’d like to propose that in the place of your arbitrary choice of said verses, we should actually begin in James 5:7 and read through verse 18. Why? Because this choice represents the contextual thought flow of the writer: it continues with the thematic framework presented at the beginning of James’ letter in Chapter 1, where he specifically addresses the motifs of spiritual patience, endurance, and perseverance as applied to authentic faith. Your choice of verses bypasses this whole consideration and lifts four verses from their embedded context, wrenching the joints of their full implication, and application, out of their sockets. Needless to say, your approach leaves us--the readers—with misconstrued opportunity and the potential for vast disappointment when we eventually learn that we’re not able to actually cash what seems to be (in English, anyway) a well-deserved, blank check for healing and answered prayer.

Dude, you don’t have to respond. Even though I've enjoyed our conversation, all of this is “Stinky Spaghetti,” and I know you probably don’t want to choke down the dinner I’ve prepared. I’m just saying; “cutting to the chase.”

I think I’ll head over to Ficino next.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

April 4, 2015

I'd say that the two options you've provided demonstrate a somewhat reductionistic, dichotomous, and oversimplified approach.

The Bible (the bunch of texts that we have) is either the revelation of the omni-everything God, or it's not.

If it's wrong to put forth this dichotomy, then, is it wrong because:

1 - only some parts of the Bible are revelation?

2 - all of the Bible is revelation, but only parts are perspicuous, or none?

3 - God is not omni-everything?

I use "omni-everything" just as short-hand for omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent in the "God is love" sense. But I'm sure that you didn't take "everything" in this phrase literally, Philo!

BTW I have not studied communication theory. One associate of mine uses it in his writings about ancient philosophy (e.g. macro-rhetoric vs. micro-rhetoric - but maybe those terms do not even belong to communication theory!). That's all I know.

It may be that we'll all just wind up dizzied by the slippery play of signifiers, especially as they cavort across written texts. The consequences of the texts' interpretation and application can be quite concrete, though - all the way up to religious authorities' having people put to death.

I agree with what you said earlier, that my experiences were influences upon my perception that the Bible does not contain the revelation of the omni-everything God. They were also influences upon my decision for Christ in the first place. I am guessing that you would agree that experiences are part of everyone's storehouse of info, which comes into play as they try to make decisions. I also guess that you would agree that, the greater the degree of universality and intersubjective verification, the more confidence we can place in the conclusions we draw from our own experiences or others' reports of theirs.

April 4, 2015

BTW I have not studied communication theory.

Sucks for you. Now you'll never be able to understand the bible. Read up, ficino--your eternal destiny depends on it!

April 4, 2015

Hello 2PhiloVoid, I thought of this thread when I read the following:

"Christians are divided also, in their view of the Bible. Some understand the Bible as a human document, one that records the struggle of our ancestors as they sought to grasp timeless truths through a lens darkened by fallibility and culture. Others see it as the literally perfect Word of God, essentially dictated by God to the authors."

I don't know whether you'll think the above a reductive dichotomy or a valid one w/ various subdivisions.

The above paragraph is from what I consider a good article on recent religious freedom laws. It would hijack the thread to make that issue a focus now, but since I quoted from that article, I provide the link:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/04/right_wing_christianity_teaches_bigotry_the_ugly_roots_of_indianas_new_anti_gay_law_partner/

April 4, 2015

teal deer

A bastardization of "tl;dr", which is a bastardization of "Too long ; Didn't read." Usually presented in the form of a photochopped image of a deer.

Thread starter: lengthy chat log
Reply to thread: said image of a deer

Philo: writing verbosely does nothing to add weight to your arguments; it just suggests that you don't know how to write concisely. I don't even read your posts anymore. Write concisely and I might.

April 4, 2015

Alright, Dude. Maybe it’s just the effusive effects of the ash and stench in the Stinky Spaghetti I’ve been serving up, but whatever it is, it seems I need to clear the air of my mismanaged communication.

First, I understand and appreciate your effort to clarify what it means to “keep one’s audience in mind.” Your response to my apparent failures is helpful, and you’ve been affable and practical in pointing out that anything other than “cutting to the chase” in this forum will probably just get me ignored. So, thank you for the advice. Because of that, I’m also learning to stay away from the use of cheap, ironic humor in this venue; it seems to be a liability here.

I agree that somewhere along the way while writing my previous, elongated post (#97), I overstepped the bounds of appropriateness for the Lion’s Den. I regret that action since I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, not to mention my own. However, there is one caveat--I intended for that post to be a wee bit longer, and I made it that way in the hope that I could emphasize a few of the complexities present within the interpretive processes which should be addressed when reading ancient, foreign books like the Bible, or any book for that matter. Surely, we can agree that tracks have to be firmly laid down before a train can be run over any given ground, and our traversing the bible is no different.

To my chagrin, I’m realizing more and more all the time that people just don’t care one way or the other about how aspects of Communication Theory (among other things) play a real part in reading and applying a written work like the Bible. From my own experience, it seems this lack of concern is prevalent among a lot of people, whether they’re Christian or Un-Christian. At times, this really bugs me, but I realize that some of my own feelings about this are my own “personal problem,” and I apparently have more work to do on not being surprised by it or allowing myself to wonder “why?” If I’m right about the Bible’s complexity, then reasonably, I can’t necessarily fault people for the ambivalence they might have to it.

Now, Dude.…about this “cutting to the chase” stuff. I have a difficult time seeing just where the line is to be drawn between “cutting to the chase” and just being plain “curt” about things. But, here it goes…

In assessing the meaning of James 5:13-16 as it relates to Christian prayer and healing, your choice of these specific verses is mostly arbitrary, and appears to be done without recourse or regard to hermeneutic practice and/or communication theory. Alternatively, I’d like to propose that in the place of your arbitrary choice of said verses, we should actually begin in James 5:7 and read through verse 18. Why? Because this choice represents the contextual thought flow of the writer: it continues with the thematic framework presented at the beginning of James’ letter in Chapter 1, where he specifically addresses the motifs of spiritual patience, endurance, and perseverance as applied to authentic faith. Your choice of verses bypasses this whole consideration and lifts four verses from their embedded context, wrenching the joints of their full implication, and application, out of their sockets. Needless to say, your approach leaves us--the readers—with misconstrued opportunity and the potential for vast disappointment when we eventually learn that we’re not able to actually cash what seems to be (in English, anyway) a well-deserved, blank check for healing and answered prayer.

Dude, you don’t have to respond. Even though I've enjoyed our conversation, all of this is “Stinky Spaghetti,” and I know you probably don’t want to choke down the dinner I’ve prepared. I’m just saying; “cutting to the chase.”

I think I’ll head over to Ficino next.

Peace

2PhiloVoid

Oh I wouldn't say you broke any rules. If you had one of the moderators would let you know. It's just your posts would be a lot more meaningful if they had less fluff in them.

You might be right about James. The original had no break in it and was read strait through.

April 4, 2015

Short version: Read it in context.

April 4, 2015

Short version: Read it in context.

I appreciate the summary. As for reading it in context, what a convenient way to wriggle out of what the bible actually says.

April 4, 2015

Excellent! Let’s talk context here, then.

Philo is right—James does talk about the need for patient endurance, and the reality of suffering even for believers. In context, healing isn’t guaranteed, but neither is the idea so easily dismissed as you would like, Philo, in context. If god leads people to believe he will heal if he sees fit, and healing doesn’t come . . . what then? We just say, Oh well, his ways, our ways, father knows best. I’m earning my mansion up in glory by all this suffering, praise his Unusually Holy Name.

In context, James urges the believer to seek for healing through prayer and anointing with oil. You can’t avoid this. Why else would someone come to be anointed and prayed over if they didn’t have good hope of god answering the prayer? Did James write, “Are any of you sick, or mentally ill? Buck up, brother and sister, you can’t expect god to do anything for you, Haymen?” No, he wants them to pack off to the elders to get their healing from god.

And what would be the purpose of James using Job and Elijah as examples if it wasn’t meant to prove just how powerfully god can intervene in extraordinary answers to prayer? Or just how much god in his tender mercy wants to set all things right again? And these examples aren’t given as if it is a rare exception—in context, this is the normal course of things for James. People suffer, but patient endurance and the prayer of faith can set all things right again.

(Don’t get me started on the context of James 1, where he basically says that if you don’t receive answers to your prayers it’s your fault for having such weak faith or an unstable mind. Tough shit. How dare you question god?!)

This discussion proves just how pliable the bible is to any interpretation you wish to find. Context in the words and phrases matters less than the context of the individual interpreter. And, after all this, we still don’t have a good answer to Dude’s question!

April 4, 2015

Excellent! Let’s talk context here, then.

Philo is right—James does talk about the need for patient endurance, and the reality of suffering even for believers. In context, healing isn’t guaranteed, but neither is the idea so easily dismissed as you would like, Philo, in context. If god leads people to believe he will heal if he sees fit, and healing doesn’t come . . . what then? We just say, Oh well, his ways, our ways, father knows best. I’m earning my mansion up in glory by all this suffering, praise his Unusually Holy Name.

In context, James urges the believer to seek for healing through prayer and anointing with oil. You can’t avoid this. Why else would someone come to be anointed and prayed over if they didn’t have good hope of god answering the prayer? Did James write, “Are any of you sick, or mentally ill? Buck up, brother and sister, you can’t expect god to do anything for you, Haymen?” No, he wants them to pack off to the elders to get their healing from god.

And what would be the purpose of James using Job and Elijah as examples if it wasn’t meant to prove just how powerfully god can intervene in extraordinary answers to prayer? Or just how much god in his tender mercy wants to set all things right again? And these examples aren’t given as if it is a rare exception—in context, this is the normal course of things for James. People suffer, but patient endurance and the prayer of faith can set all things right again.

(Don’t get me started on the context of James 1, where he basically says that if you don’t receive answers to your prayers it’s your fault for having such weak faith or an unstable mind. Tough shit. How dare you question god?!)

This discussion proves just how pliable the bible is to any interpretation you wish to find. Context in the words and phrases matters less than the context of the individual interpreter. And, after all this, we still don’t have a good answer to Dude’s question!

Hi St Jeff,

I'll be concise. I disagree with your proposition that James 5 is presenting anything in the way of normative ease or any kind of unconditional cast for prayer and healing. Since the context is, as you've conceded, embedded in the themes of perseverance, endurance, and faithfulness through the long haul, etc, and being that James mentions two examples of "righteous" people--anything but common at all--we see then by this overall context that it is the 'righteous' prayers of 'righteous' church leaders who may bring about healing. And when James means 'righteous,' were talking about some spiritually potent men, not Jimmy Swaggart or Benny Hinn types.

Have you ever known a church leader, in our day and age, who had the endurance, faithfulness, and righteous track record of a Job or Elijah? I don't. In fact, I personally have never come across one; and I KNOW I can't say that I ever been that way myself. Wish I was; wish I had been. I wouldn't mind being so solid in faith that I'll find myself being whisked away in a Chariot of Fire, but I know that over the years, I've had some morally 'crapfest' moments. So, tough lot for me too! So, I guess I'll be going to the hospital next time I get hit with something...

Peace

2PhiloVoid

April 4, 2015

Hi St Jeff,

I'll be concise. I disagree with your proposition that James 5 is presenting anything in the way of normative ease or any kind of unconditional cast for prayer and healing. Since the context is, as you've conceded, embedded in the themes of perseverance, endurance, and faithfulness through the long haul, etc, and being that James mentions two examples of "righteous" people--anything but common at all--we see then by this overall context that it is the 'righteous' prayers of 'righteous' church leaders who may bring about healing. And when James means 'righteous,' were talking about some spiritually potent men, not Jimmy Swaggart or Benny Hinn types.

Have you ever known a church leader, in our day and age, who had the endurance, faithfulness, and righteous track record of a Job or Elijah? I don't. In fact, I personally have never come across one; and I KNOW I can't say that I ever been that way myself. Wish I was; wish I had been. I wouldn't mind being so solid in faith that I'll find myself being whisked away in a Chariot of Fire, but I know that over the years, I've had some morally 'crapfest' moments. So, tough lot for me too! So, I guess I'll be going to the hospital next time I get hit with something...

Peace

2PhiloVoid

Ha! Good post, Philo.

If all James is saying is that we're in for a lot of suffering in life (no duh); and only in the rarest of circumstances, with only with the most giantest men of faith can we expect healing, I would conclude that James has nothing to add to the discussion. Can we safely follow Luther's lead and dismiss James as an "epistle of straw"?

Why Does God's Voice Only Speak To The Mentally Ill?

Recommended Posts

StJeffTheIncomprehensible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

violetbutterfly

Justin

ficino

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

2PhiloVoid

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

2PhiloVoid

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

StJeffTheIncomprehensible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

sdelsolray

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bornagainathiest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

duderonomy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

disillusioned

Link to comment

Share on other sites

2PhiloVoid

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

StJeffTheIncomprehensible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

♦ ficino ♦

Link to comment

Share on other sites

FreeThinkerNZ

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mymistake

Link to comment

Share on other sites

sdelsolray

Link to comment

Share on other sites

FreeThinkerNZ

Link to comment

Share on other sites

StJeffTheIncomprehensible

Link to comment

Share on other sites

2PhiloVoid