Featured David Chilton's Hermeneutics

Of course you do yes or no answers. You do them all the time, just not in discussions about the Bible, which I feel is a huge mistake. As Tom Cassidy pointed out, "Let your yea be yea, and your nea, nea." That's Bible.

Server: "Would you like fries with that?"
Iconoclast: "I feel that fries are a misuse of the potato plant. However, they do have a modicum of taste to them that I relish."
Server: "Huh? Does that mean yes??"

I do yes and no answers all the time. I stand up for what I believe. If I say "yes," it's pretty hard for someone to claim I meant "no."

"JoJ, are you a dispensationalist?"

Answer: "Yes, and unashamedly."

I'll say exactly why I started this thread. I'm not ashamed of it. This thread exists to combat the damage you have done on the BB by claiming Chilton over and over as a good source for interpreting the Bible, and agreeing with Gary North that he cannot be successfully answered. I finally got tired of your constant dependence on this guy.

As I have shown and will continue to show, Chilton did not know the Greek and had awful hermeneutics. This makes him completely unreliable as a source. You may continue to use him, but hopefully others will be turned away from his ignorance.

Good! So you will no longer reference Chilton as an expert, is that correct?

 

As I have already pointed out somewhat, Chilton had a poor grasp of some terminology. This is true in the area of hermeneuics. For example, he never mentions "allegorical interpretation" or "grammatical historical interpretation," or the normal term for any other widely recognized methods. He instead makes "literalism" a pejorative. In fact, the term "hermeneutic(s)” itself only occurs once in PR, actually in a book title in the bibliography on p. 294. DOV is not much better. TGT never uses the term.

On p. 199 of PR, he talks about hyperbole (not using the term), but doesn’t recognize that as a figure of speech.

Though he talks a lot about interpretation in PR, nowhere does he mention: figure of speech, simile, personification, or hyperbole.

He only uses the term “metaphor” twice in PR: p. 18 about the water for the woman at the well, and p. 79 about the barren fig tree: “Israel was a garden, a vineyard, in rebellion against its owner; or, to change the metaphor, it was a tree without fruit.” If he is all about symbolism and allegorical interpretation, why doe he not talk more about metaphors?

 

Yes, because referencing quotes is not only the ethical thing to do, it's a rule on the BB.

But I'm hoping that now you will abandon him.

Great! Glad to help.

I don't remember any such thing either. I never accused him of that or you of saying it.

Thanks for not derailing the thread.

 

Does Chillton have a Car Repair for Dummies? That's the one I'd need.

 

Headed home until Monday, at which time I'll finish up this thread with some notes about Chilton's use of numerology. Have a great weekend, everyone!