ADVERTENCIA: Los artículos referidos a interpretación bíblica, son descriptos desde la perspectiva cristiana, no es intención ofender a personas con creencias diferentes, por lo tanto se requiere la discreción del lector.WARNING:articles regarding biblical interpretation are written from a christian perspective, with no offence intended toward people with different beliefs, so viewer discretion is advised.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

The importance of the order in information

The importance in the information order(placement).
To understand a message consisting of different parts it is always necessary to follow the order in which the information was given, an also the moment reason and circumstance for them to be given. Many times two messages that speak about the same subject can be contradictory if one ignores the time difference or events or circumstances that led them to be made, wetter read together or separately (out of context).

Another case is that even while a message might be talking about the same (or similar) thing, it can also refer to two different circumstances the same; Or can exist a second part of the message modifying the first part, and if it’s ignored, the message is not actualized and lack of data.

Perhaps a few examples can help understand the concept:

Which one of the next reasonings is the correct?: If the phrase is read separately:
(The second part is read without knowing the first part)

"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it;"

1) from that tree I can not eat, but about another tree ... I know not ...
2) from that tree I can not eat, but perhaps I can eat from another one.

But if later I got the information from the previous text:

”And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat”
Which is correct?:
1) Thus I can eat from any tree, except the tree He told me not to eat.
2) Thus the second sentence is an allegory, because before I was told I could eat from any tree, of all of them ...
3) Thus the second sentence refers to something else, not a tree, because he told me to eat of every tree in the first sentence...
4) The second sentence is certainly talking about a tree, because the only thing which could make me thing different is to assume that the second sentence is not related with the preceding, and definitely the second message is adding to what was said before and not talking about something else, so the return results is = all trees I can eat except one ( if 100 trees 100-1 = 99)

The one who read the second thing without knowing the first thing has the updated data, and knows the most important, the one who read the two things at different times, but understand the order and meaning, also have the right information.
Anyone who read the first sentence and then ignored the second or thought that the first annulled the second, doesn’t has the correct info.
The one who only read the first sentence neither had it, because he was ignoring the meaning of the sentence and the correct data relationship.

An extreme example: the following statements are all true and speak the same thing but in different ways and in different circumstances:
Monday = I have 7 apples.
Tuesday = Buy 7 apples
Wednesday = I ate 3 apples
Thursday = I have 13 apples.
Friday = I ate 3 apples.
Saturday = day before buy 2 apples
Sunday = I have 10 apples
(7 +7-3 +2-3 = 10)

All the examples together give the same result, but if I have any of the sentences separated or/and ignoring the chronological order, the message is clearly wrong if you assume that the information is unique and complete needing nothing else.
And when assuming the lack of information is confusing or incomplete.
But if I have only the last and final part, although I will not know the events that led to that result I will have the right message and updated.

Another example
My hand is white (I say before)
My hand is black (I say now)
Is any of the two is an allegory or a falsehood?
Both are true, the first time was it was dirty with white paint, the second because it was smeared with tar. I Did not refer to the actual color of the hand but about a circumstance modifying it.

No comments: