Evidence for God from Science

This kind of came about from points discussed in a couple of other threads.

What role, if any, does tradition play in how we interpret biblical passages?
Not the explicit ones, typically, but the one that seem to imply more than one understanding?

In school we are taught that tradition gives us the understanding of what the people of the time ( those writing their views on a passage, not the writers OF THE passage) thought, it illuminates THEIR understanding BUT does not always illuminate the thoughts of the original writers. For that one must clearly put themselves in the proverbial shows of the original writers, what they thought, what they read and what they were taught.

Much like science, there is a possibility of things being changed as discoveries happen ( like the dead sea scrolls for example).
Traditions are also opinions and not scripture, so we must never get too hung up on them BUT they do serve to help us understand things from a view closer to the source.

Thoughts?

An example is how one reads the OT and NT without having been taught or read Augustine's view on them (like Genesis) and how one reads them after learning about Augustine's views or, perhaps with more impact, Aquinas' views of God.

PaulSacramento wrote:An example is how one reads the OT and NT without having been taught or read Augustine's view on them (like Genesis) and how one reads them after learning about Augustine's views or, perhaps with more impact, Aquinas' views of God.

Rather simple and non-complex...really... Start reading say - the Psalms...

--You go by context and continuity of the bible verses. One can Start looking into the OT prophecy concerning Jesus and their fulfillment in the NT. Or if one see's a particular verse, one can look at the verses above and below that verse noticing the context and continuity of the verse.

--If you want to delve deeper, learn to use Greek and Hebrew word meaning dictionaries which are plentiful now and free online to use.

--Know that error comes by reading cultural, philosophical, and ethnocentrism into these languages.

--Realize that the ancient Hebrew used in in first five books of the bible had a limited vocabulary of around 8500 words.

All the above helps to avoid the human quest of pride to dominant intellectually others sublimely disguised under the noblest of intents.
-
-
-

Indeed.
I have seen the views For AND against tradition used by the same people.
On one side they agree with a view and base that on the fact that tradition ( example would be the writings of the 2nd generation of Christian disciples) states that those people understood it that way BUT then the views of those very same people are not accepted about something else.
My view has always been the tradition should be used to illuminate the understanding of the people of those times, to help us better understand what people in that era would have understood when reading/hearing certain things.

An example of this is that the bible for 1st century Jews and Christians was the Septuagint. That is the bible they used and referenced and quoted and, regardless of the issues we may have with it, IT was the one they had and used and viewed as scripture.
If the Septuagint said A) and one of our translations says B) and you were to show it to a 1st century Jew they would be like WTF ??
That should mean something.