What do you think?
Rate this book
Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation
Biblical interpretation is facing a crisis. Is Biblical interpretation the result of someone's particular perspective or personal point of view? Is there no basis upon which we can discover and hold to a "correct" interpretation? More and more authors are surrendering to the influence of Postmodern relativism. This malady is not limited to non-evangelicals. The pervasiveness of a Postmodern perspectivism propagated through the notions of presuppositions, preunderstanding, world views, horizon, paradigms, historicism, and a host of other approaches that are often confusing to a committed Christian who simply wants to understand God's Word. Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation analyzes and explains the current crisis of objectivity and presents a reasoned defense of objective interpretation that directly confronts the relativistic claims of Postmodern relativism.
398 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
23 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 31, 2016
Verbose beyond words.
It's quite possible that this is the most verbose yet vapid tome I've ever read. There are a few redeeming qualities, such as the mention of actual objectivity, and absolute truth, but...the author goes, in my opinion, utterly overboard in his conclusion that because these things exist, we know that God created them. Seriously, that is the conclusion of the book: objectivity is objectively observable, and therefore there is such a thing as absolute truth, and thus it follows that if this so, then God, in his great foresight, must have willed that this is so.
Therefore, the conclusion being, the god of the Bible is real, and now you can know that if you read your bible (which one, the author never says, oddly enough...), and listen to other people (who more than likely will, oddly enough, be those whom you gravitate towards because they align with your already-always-present presuppositions), who believe in Objectivity (at least theoretically), then you can rest assured that you've come to an accurate understanding of what the Bible objectively says.
Right...
Only one problem. Even if this was all true (which it is so obviously, objectively true that it isn't; just look at how many thousands of Christian denominations there are, the world over), one must still ask the question:
If the God of the Bible is real, or there is a god even close to what is portrayed in the Bible (meaning an anthropomorphic deity), then why did he have such a difficult time communicating, objectively, to his poor creatures who can never seem to figure out what he was (is) trying to say?
Oh, that's right- sin. But then, where'd THAT idea come from?
Before you respond with something regarding Satan blinding the eyes (minds) of unbelievers, or something regarding the "freewill" of people to just "look" at the evidence of god all around them, consider something: how did YOU come to believe what you have since come to believe? Think about it.
I'm any case, my review of the book was one star because, as a former Christian fundamentalist, I've read my fair share of apologetics books and arguments, and ironically enough, it was when I went to the "other side," to "objectively" evaluate, for myself, the opposing ideologies of atheism/agnosticism, it was then that I realized who really had the goods, regarding objectivity. Granted, the conclusion of atheism is silly, but that is for another topic and book review altogether, that there is no supreme intelligence in the universe (so says that human), but at least atheist apologists have what it takes to easily dismantle religious arguments, showing them for what they are: pure absurdity based on the most trite logical fallacy, the appeal to authority (God said it so it's true).
In all honesty, the only real, responsible, adult assumption of the objectivity of our world, from a metaphysical standpoint, has to been sheer agnosticism, since no one has proof of ANYTHING relating to the spiritual worlds beyond this one, save a few mystics, psychics, and parapsychologists, but that's for another time, and something, most likely, a person reading this review, would be much too disconcerted to venture towards.
Peace, and happy hunting, bedeviled truth-seekers!
It's quite possible that this is the most verbose yet vapid tome I've ever read. There are a few redeeming qualities, such as the mention of actual objectivity, and absolute truth, but...the author goes, in my opinion, utterly overboard in his conclusion that because these things exist, we know that God created them. Seriously, that is the conclusion of the book: objectivity is objectively observable, and therefore there is such a thing as absolute truth, and thus it follows that if this so, then God, in his great foresight, must have willed that this is so.
Therefore, the conclusion being, the god of the Bible is real, and now you can know that if you read your bible (which one, the author never says, oddly enough...), and listen to other people (who more than likely will, oddly enough, be those whom you gravitate towards because they align with your already-always-present presuppositions), who believe in Objectivity (at least theoretically), then you can rest assured that you've come to an accurate understanding of what the Bible objectively says.
Right...
Only one problem. Even if this was all true (which it is so obviously, objectively true that it isn't; just look at how many thousands of Christian denominations there are, the world over), one must still ask the question:
If the God of the Bible is real, or there is a god even close to what is portrayed in the Bible (meaning an anthropomorphic deity), then why did he have such a difficult time communicating, objectively, to his poor creatures who can never seem to figure out what he was (is) trying to say?
Oh, that's right- sin. But then, where'd THAT idea come from?
Before you respond with something regarding Satan blinding the eyes (minds) of unbelievers, or something regarding the "freewill" of people to just "look" at the evidence of god all around them, consider something: how did YOU come to believe what you have since come to believe? Think about it.
I'm any case, my review of the book was one star because, as a former Christian fundamentalist, I've read my fair share of apologetics books and arguments, and ironically enough, it was when I went to the "other side," to "objectively" evaluate, for myself, the opposing ideologies of atheism/agnosticism, it was then that I realized who really had the goods, regarding objectivity. Granted, the conclusion of atheism is silly, but that is for another topic and book review altogether, that there is no supreme intelligence in the universe (so says that human), but at least atheist apologists have what it takes to easily dismantle religious arguments, showing them for what they are: pure absurdity based on the most trite logical fallacy, the appeal to authority (God said it so it's true).
In all honesty, the only real, responsible, adult assumption of the objectivity of our world, from a metaphysical standpoint, has to been sheer agnosticism, since no one has proof of ANYTHING relating to the spiritual worlds beyond this one, save a few mystics, psychics, and parapsychologists, but that's for another time, and something, most likely, a person reading this review, would be much too disconcerted to venture towards.
Peace, and happy hunting, bedeviled truth-seekers!
November 24, 2022
3.5 stars [Epistemology]
(W: 2.38, U: 3.25, T: 4.5)
Exact rating: 3.38
Seemed to be a dissertation-turned-book, which rarely turn out excellently. Dense and technical philosophy/epistemology, so very inaccessible. 324 pages. Some repetitive content could have been reduced for a cleaner Main Body. Rather decent academic writing, but too much bare "This scholar asserts x, y, z" even for that subgenre.
Its truth might have been rare [T: 4] forty years ago, but in the 21st century it is a stunning refutation of an almost universal folly. A great mass of people calling themselves "scholars" ought to be smacked in the face with this book.
_____________________
//W lex 3.5, sem 2.75, dyn 2.5 (text 2, content 3), pac 1.75, l&o 3.5, syn 2.25; -1/3 star for repetition
//U accessibility 1.5, definitiveness 4.5; +1/4 for diagrams
(W: 2.38, U: 3.25, T: 4.5)
Exact rating: 3.38
Seemed to be a dissertation-turned-book, which rarely turn out excellently. Dense and technical philosophy/epistemology, so very inaccessible. 324 pages. Some repetitive content could have been reduced for a cleaner Main Body. Rather decent academic writing, but too much bare "This scholar asserts x, y, z" even for that subgenre.
Its truth might have been rare [T: 4] forty years ago, but in the 21st century it is a stunning refutation of an almost universal folly. A great mass of people calling themselves "scholars" ought to be smacked in the face with this book.
_____________________
//W lex 3.5, sem 2.75, dyn 2.5 (text 2, content 3), pac 1.75, l&o 3.5, syn 2.25; -1/3 star for repetition
//U accessibility 1.5, definitiveness 4.5; +1/4 for diagrams
March 1, 2019
I would have given this book 5 stars if the first five chapters or so weren’t so repetitive. But the last half of this book is worth making it through those chapters. Howe offers a great defense of objective interpretation by appealing to Aristotelian metaphysics.
October 29, 2024
Highly recommend, but be prepared to take it slow. This is a dense philosophical treatise on Objective Biblical interpretation and a case for the Moderate Realism View.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews