Context is King

[Wandering Monk]

Yes, the value of word is determined from the sentence it has been used and the value of a sentence from the passage, and value of a passage from the chapter and the value of a chapter from the whole book. Right friend, please?

Regards

There is more to context than the content of the book. It is not the only measure of context.

 

[blü 2]

"When you take the TEXT out of CONTEXT you are left with nothing but a CON"

Yay or Nay?

When you take the CON out of CONTEXT, you're left with the TEXT.

And with ancient documents I'd say the text is always where you start ─ what, when, where, who, why? That's the process that will show the relevance of context.

 

[danieldemol]

"When you take the TEXT out of CONTEXT you are left with nothing but a CON"

Yay or Nay?

This especially applies to prophecy where people cherry pick bits that can be interpreted as coming true whilst ignoring and failing to mention bits of the prophecy which are obviously false.

 

[icehorse]

I have heard that been said. I used to even use that reasoning myself.

The question is: How do you conclude that there is a bigger context?

I would stand firm in saying that overall context is determined by the common thread in the immediate context of various components.

Well I've assumed that in this thread, you're focusing on understanding religious scripture, is that correct? If so, then before you can even begin reading it, its adherents load the material with all sorts of context:

- it's the word of god
- it's perfect
- it's timeless
- it's unalterable

And so on. All of these claims made by a scripture's followers must be considered to be a part of the context, correct?

 

[halbhh]

"When you take the TEXT out of CONTEXT you are left with nothing but a CON"

Yay or Nay?

People really do texturize, rough up, the texts rather strongly, massaging and reshaping, when they have a bit away from the mould.

 

[rational experiences]

Science does not exist

Theism to think as a human for scientific statements.

Egotism.

Every state natural.

Builds a machine quotes nuclear time shift mass.

The meaning re active conversion to get power of God. Remove God jewel seal as el. Fusion in mass crystalline held.

King rich jewels and metals. God earth.

Science is only about God mass.

Human lives safely in heavens.

Coded maths O human inferred.

Attacked life.

Man scientist said my life became poor brain irradiation effect. Crown of thorns reasoning.

Man sciences inventor then quotes now I am self destructive encoded.

As a man.

Stephen in bible year 12 end theme.
Haw King.

Says science wrong.

My teaching self presence scientist sacrificed. Using a machine to talk for me. Your own man human king warning.

Encoded AI effect.

 

[Clara Tea]

"When you take the TEXT out of CONTEXT you are left with nothing but a CON"

Yay or Nay?

But you would have an octet of oxen that tote a ton of text to a tent to vouch for the veracity.

Other than that. . . I agree.

 

[Clara Tea]

People really do texturize, rough up, the texts rather strongly, massaging and reshaping, when they have a bit away from the mould.

It is a teacher's goal to mold young minds....but mine was moldy enough.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, the value of word is determined from the sentence it has been used and the value of a sentence from the passage, and value of a passage from the chapter and the value of a chapter from the whole book. Right friend, please?

Regards

Very much correct!

 

[Samael_Khan]

When you take the CON out of CONTEXT, you're left with the TEXT.

And with ancient documents I'd say the text is always where you start ─ what, when, where, who, why? That's the process that will show the relevance of context.

I fully agree with you there.

 

[Samael_Khan]

This especially applies to prophecy where people cherry pick bits that can be interpreted as coming true whilst ignoring and failing to mention bits of the prophecy which are obviously false.

I often find that those people, besides ignoring or reinterpreting what is obviously true, more often than not do not deal with the text inbetween their proof texts that put both of those in context, changing the meaning immensely.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Well I've assumed that in this thread, you're focusing on understanding religious scripture, is that correct? If so, then before you can even begin reading it, its adherents load the material with all sorts of context:

- it's the word of god
- it's perfect
- it's timeless
- it's unalterable

And so on. All of these claims made by a scripture's followers must be considered to be a part of the context, correct?

Yes. People don't read religious text the same way as any other text for some reason, so religious texts have a big context problem when people communicate it. I also see this when people quote mine those they disagree with, but I want to focus on religious texts.

What I find strange, is how people conclude those points that you mention in the first place, before they even understand what the text says. I think it is because they con potential believers by saying that only God can reveal the meaning of a text, which means that there is no valid way of examining the text objectively, and so people have to rely on the group in order to understand the book. When people cannot reach their own conclusions with their own reasoning then they are handing over their reasoning to others who have to reason for them. Therefore I would say that any believer who believes such a thing has no right to try and convince others of their understanding because they themselves do not understand.

So I would say, no, most of those points are not part of the context, unless so proven by reading the text in its self contained context. The "timeless" point I would say applies to all religious texts in at least a few instances, as timelessness is a vague concept.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It is a teacher's goal to mold young minds....but mine was moldy enough.

This is gold

 

[Tiberius]

Wordplay is a terrible way to find truths about the universe.

 

[icehorse]

Yes. People don't read religious text the same way as any other text for some reason, so religious texts have a big context problem when people communicate it. I also see this when people quote mine those they disagree with, but I want to focus on religious texts.

What I find strange, is how people conclude those points that you mention in the first place, before they even understand what the text says. I think it is because they con potential believers by saying that only God can reveal the meaning of a text, which means that there is no valid way of examining the text objectively, and so people have to rely on the group in order to understand the book. When people cannot reach their own conclusions with their own reasoning then they are handing over their reasoning to others who have to reason for them. Therefore I would say that any believer who believes such a thing has no right to try and convince others of their understanding because they themselves do not understand.

So I would say, no, most of those points are not part of the context, unless so proven by reading the text in its self contained context. The "timeless" point I would say applies to all religious texts in at least a few instances, as timelessness is a vague concept.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a person should come to the scripture with an open mind and read it and understand it for themselves?

 

[Samael_Khan]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a person should come to the scripture with an open mind and read it and understand it for themselves?

Rather than an open mind, approach it with a blank mind and then shape your understanding based on what the book says. Understand what is said that way.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Wordplay is a terrible way to find truths about the universe.

Words are there for communication and they express concepts. If word play is used as a teaching tool and expresses a concept in a creative way them it is good. Poetry does such a thing.

 

[icehorse]

Rather than an open mind, approach it with a blank mind and then shape your understanding based on what the book says. Understand what is said that way.

I agree with this approach. But in my experience, when I draw conclusions using this approach, apologists tell me that I'm taking the words out of context (Are we going around in circles?)

 

[Samael_Khan]

I agree with this approach. But in my experience, when I draw conclusions using this approach, apologists tell me that I'm taking the words out of context (Are we going around in circles?)

Do they explain to you why it is out of context?

 

[icehorse]

Do they explain to you why it is out of context?

Well you're probably familiar with the criticisms, thinks like:

- never mind the book is timeless, you can understand it only if you understand how the world was X hundreds of years ago
- you can't look at just that verse, you have to see that verse in the bigger context
- holy men have agreed that THIS is the correct way to interpret that verse
- you must not have actually read the scripture

And so on..