View Single Post
Old 06-29-2022, 5:15 PM
billvau's Avatar
billvau billvau is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Norcal mountains
Posts: 773
iTrader: 2 / 100%

Originally Posted by 7x57 View Post
I'm not sure whether this topic is likely to go haywire, but the Calguns Faith forum may be the only kind of place that it could easily be discussed. Let's see if this leads to an interesting discussion.

I've spent a lot of time trying to understand how the founding generation expected legal texts to be read, above all the Constitution (i.e. not really about how you have to read it today if you expect to win, which is different). I became very originalist, without any expectation that any court would accept such a reading. I usually notice gunnies reading it in modern context without being aware of it, and I try to avoid doing that.
I've also spent a lot of time trying to understand how to read scripture as we were intended to read it, and ultimately became very originalist there as well--scripture as it could have been understood in the First and Temple Jewish contexts, most of all. I usually notice Christians reading it in modern context without being aware of it, and I try to avoid doing that. (Just to be clear: this is a variant of specifically Protestant Christian hermeneutics. The variation consists mainly in not putting much authority in reading in the context of later church history, which I suspect is probably the standard Reformation hermeneutic. I can't intelligently say much about other hermeneutics.)

As you can see, my belief in "correct" hermeneutics in both law and theology converged pretty strongly. This is back on my mind again because the snippets of Thomas' writing in Bruen that I've seen mandate the most breathtakingly originalist readings of the Second Amendment and historical precedent that I've ever read in a legal document. Most of all because it looks like Thomas is very clear that you have to read it in the original context (a huge conceptual shift that is going to have fascinating consequences). In fact it's far closer to how I've come to read the bible than how most Christians read it (whether that's good or bad is a separate debate).

With all that said, my question is whether others have ended up doing this, or do you choose instead to read inspired texts differently? Do you intentionally choose the context you read in (whether the Constitution or scripture), or not?

What you describe is almost identical to proper Biblical study. I study the Bible so carefully, that it can't help but spill over into the rest of my life. I'm constantly pointing out the absurd meanings that misplaced prepositional phrases have on TV, in the news, etc. We get quite a laugh.

I also find myself constantly frustrated by terribly poor grammar of most news articles. Many, many sentences are non-sensical.

And, yes, I read all documents "in-context." Same with the constitution. So, in the Bible each book has a specific context. You have to completely understand what the author was saying to that audience at that time. Then, you pull out the "universal truths" for teaching. Application is always current, but completely in line with the universal truth.

If you do this, you can ignore much garbage in religious posts around here too!

Pastor Bill

“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason- I do not accept the authority of popes and councils [i.e. any man]- my conscience is captive to the Word of God…” Martin Luther
Reply With Quote