What are the chances?

[sojourner]

Imagine if I began to explain to you basic addition. It would be...very odd.

Here, this could help: if you have encountered hundreds of Christians on the internet that seems to have little to no understanding you could easily get in just a few hours from a good commentary or by reading a theologian (I know I have), then...we should not just assume that would also be the case for any Christian we encounter in the future.

Right?



I like that. You are simply preaching to the choir on some level here.

Now, what brought on this lecture on such a basic, obvious thing though?

Was it somehow disturbing to hear the idea you ought to read with an open mind and try to hear the text, more fully? (it might be! after all, the implications can be fraught)

It's well known by those that read a lot in the bible (or anything for that matter) that the best possible technique is to first read through in just a pure listening way (to get the big picture things), and then, 2nd, read all the commentaries and analyses, backgrounds, history details, etc. But, this is only how one ought best to read any text.

This is like trying to claim that, since you’ve read a bunch of law texts, you know as much as any lawyer. Or because you’ve read a bunch of medical texts and dissected a couple frogs, you can treat people as well as any physician. That’s simply not the case.

 

[halbhh]

This is like trying to claim that, since you’ve read a bunch of law texts, you know as much as any lawyer. Or because you’ve read a bunch of medical texts and dissected a couple frogs, you can treat people as well as any physician. That’s simply not the case.

Is that how you imagine it? Ok.

I'm not convinced of anything by just the reputation of some well regarded thinker/writer, though I have found very many that I value many a lot after I learned their ideas and compared them carefully to enough information and experience.

Not before.

When I read a new one, I consider their ideas/information very neutrally, and compare to more information, without any prejudice in their favor nor any against them. So, the only slight advantage an 'expert' might have is I'll be willing to read a few extra paragraphs more than I would some random person if they start off poorly (write poorly or incorporate disproven old ideas). Of course, if they do poorly compared to other available sources, there's a limit in how much time I'd give them, like anyone. I'm not inclined to just trust in any given writer/thinker merely because someone else does. They have to prove out by being able to earn their reputation compared to my own extensive information I've gathered over time, vs the competition.

In that, I'm like most people. Yourself for instance I'd expect. But I may rely less on just authority possibly. I think I probably rely less on just authority by itself than many people, at this point, being older and having read so much from so many sources already.

One normal challenge of life is to learn to see each person you meet as an individual, unlike anyone else. If you haven't got that yet, it's a great goal to aspire to.

 

[sojourner]

Is that how you imagine it? Ok.

I'm not convinced of anything by just the reputation of some well regarded thinker/writer, though I have found very many that I value many a lot after I learned their ideas and compared them carefully to enough information and experience.

Not before.

When I read a new one, I consider their ideas/information very neutrally, and compare to more information, without any prejudice in their favor nor any against them. So, the only slight advantage an 'expert' might have is I'll be willing to read a few extra paragraphs more than I would some random person if they start off poorly (write poorly or incorporate disproven old ideas). Of course, if they do poorly compared to other available sources, there's a limit in how much time I'd give them, like anyone. I'm not inclined to just trust in any given writer/thinker merely because someone else does. They have to prove out by being able to earn their reputation compared to my own extensive information I've gathered over time, vs the competition.

In that, I'm like most people. Yourself for instance I'd expect. But I may rely less on just authority possibly. I think I probably rely less on just authority by itself than many people, at this point, being older and having read so much from so many sources already.

One normal challenge of life is to learn to see each person you meet as an individual, unlike anyone else. If you haven't got that yet, it's a great goal to aspire to.

There is such a universal standard for experts in the field of biblical scholarship. It’s called “peer-review.” There are agreed-upon standards held by academicians that determine the status of scholastic authority of any published scholar. These standards are known and are employed by the scholar’s peers in the field of study. Peer-review determines whether the scholarship thus presented is valid, and determines whether the scholar is a recognized authority on the particular subject.

“Your extensive information” is not recognized as a standard for making such determination.

 

[halbhh]

There is such a universal standard for experts in the field of biblical scholarship. It’s called “peer-review.” There are agreed-upon standards held by academicians that determine the status of scholastic authority of any published scholar. These standards are known and are employed by the scholar’s peers in the field of study. Peer-review determines whether the scholarship thus presented is valid, and determines whether the scholar is a recognized authority on the particular subject.

“Your extensive information” is not recognized as a standard for making such determination.

Ah, I keep getting the sense you are assuming things about what I think or how I read that are not like what I think or how I have read. Maybe you need to ask me more questions to ascertain that before guessing how I have read, and what I relied on. That way, you'd not continue to repeated suggest (wrongly) that I didn't rely on theologians and such. I've been trying to suggest that, but it wasn't clear enough possibly. I would like people to stop assuming much about the person they are discussing anything with, I'll admit, and so I do tend to suggest things, and see whether a person will pick up on what I've implied. It does though cause a lot of extra discussion about very little, though, I admit. My fault. I need another approach possibly. Let me confess, I've read extensively in a wide variety of theologians and commentaries. Extensively. I apologize for not telling you sooner.

 

[sojourner]

Ah, I keep getting the sense you are assuming things about what I think or how I read that are not like what I think or how I have read. Maybe you need to ask me more questions to ascertain that before guessing how I have read, and what I relied on. That way, you'd not continue to repeated suggest (wrongly) that I didn't rely on theologians and such. I've been trying to suggest that, but it wasn't clear enough possibly. I would like people to stop assuming much about the person they are discussing anything with, I'll admit, and so I do tend to suggest things, and see whether a person will pick up on what I've implied. It does though cause a lot of extra discussion about very little, though, I admit. My fault. I need another approach possibly. Let me confess, I've read extensively in a wide variety of theologians and commentaries. Extensively. I apologize for not telling you sooner.

Game-playing gets us nowhere.

 

[halbhh]

Game-playing gets us nowhere.

It's very wonderful/beneficial to discover/experience, I found, that after you think you know all about what Jesus said -- say you'd read the gospels twice and plenty of commentary also.... -- that if you can bring yourself to read again what he said with a fresh eye, a real listening, as if he may have something new to teach, you will learn new things. This was one of the astounding things that happened. I've never found another text that can do this: that on the 4th time reading, it can teach me profound new things. I'm just a pretty careful reader, and typically there's nothing new left after reading twice a few years apart. The gospels are just different.

 

[sojourner]

It's very wonderful/beneficial to discover/experience, I found, that after you think you know all about what Jesus said -- say you'd read the gospels twice and plenty of commentary also.... -- that if you can bring yourself to read again what he said with a fresh eye, a real listening, as if he may have something new to teach, you will learn new things. This was one of the astounding things that happened. I've never found another text that can do this: that on the 4th time reading, it can teach me profound new things. I'm just a pretty careful reader, and typically there's nothing new left after reading twice a few years apart. The gospels are just different.

They are their own literary genre, and designed to be multivalent.