he is a full blown pretierist, so of course the literal/historical/grammatical methods makes little sense to him!I haven't made it personal at all, and was not thinking in personal terms. (My "you" was generic in the last paragraph.) Your "Oh John, John" does that.
And no, I won't forget Poythress. It's a really great book for the subject we are on. I recommend that you read it--it would help you greatly in understanding the nature of language.
And I did not get at all from your posts that you were working on the "overuse of literal interpretation." You simply mentioned it along with a parallel phrase on the overuse of metaphorical interpretation.
And what verse are you talking about anyway? Please be more clear.
Unlike you in this case, God communicates clearly. Here is an awesome quote from The Gospel Developed, by W. B. Johnson (1846): "For if God is pleased to make a communication to us in human language, we will be able so to understand it as to know what is required at our hands, or the communication would be of no avail." (From Polity, ed. by Mark Dever, p. 230).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Basics of Bible Interpretation
- Thread starter rlvaughn
- Start date
- Status
To become a full preterist, one must abandon the plain sense of many, many passages.
In translation theory, we call a translation that does not literally represent the original text a "paraphrase." So, one who does not interpret the text literally is actually paraphrasing, adding "one's own" meaning. And here are a couple of very relevant quotes on that from secular translation studies scholars:
“It is when the translator sets out to render the ‘spirit’—not the textual sense—that he begins to traduce his author. The clumsiest literal translation is a thousand times more useful than the prettiest paraphrase.” (Vladimir Nabokov, “Problems of Translation: Onegin in English,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., ed. By Lawrence Venuti, p. 115.)
“Paraphrase falls short of maintaining a semantic correspondence and is actually transformative.” Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., p. 18.
So, when one does not interpret with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, he or she is transforming the Bible into their own subjective meaning.
“It is when the translator sets out to render the ‘spirit’—not the textual sense—that he begins to traduce his author. The clumsiest literal translation is a thousand times more useful than the prettiest paraphrase.” (Vladimir Nabokov, “Problems of Translation: Onegin in English,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., ed. By Lawrence Venuti, p. 115.)
“Paraphrase falls short of maintaining a semantic correspondence and is actually transformative.” Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed., p. 18.
So, when one does not interpret with a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, he or she is transforming the Bible into their own subjective meaning.
Which he has!
Deuteronomy 22:8-11. 'When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof so that you may not bring the guilt of bloodshed on your household if anyone falls from it.
You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.
You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.
You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together'
A question for all readers. If you were preaching from these verses, how would you approach them and what applications would you draw?
You shall not sow your vineyard with different kinds of seed, lest the yield of the seed you have sown and the fruit of your vineyard be defiled.
You shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.
You shall not wear a garment of different sorts, such as wool and linen mixed together'
A question for all readers. If you were preaching from these verses, how would you approach them and what applications would you draw?
Four points:
1. Build your house with care.
2. Sow your seed with care.
3. Treat your animals with care.
4. Wear your clothes with care.
So I would interpret literally, then give applications for the Christian life. Please be aware that interpretation and application are two different steps.
How big a context? For example would you consider Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12 to be in the same 'context'?
4. Context
Lol, there was a visiting country preacher from Georgia at the Lexington Church that put it this way (probably not exactly verbatim), "Before we incorporate anything as doctrine from scripture it should first be examined with the magnifying glass, then looked at through the telescope, and then scrutinized under the microscope".
PLEEEEEZ learn to spell PRETERIST.
Not at all - one must first learn to accept the plain sense of the relevant Scriptures literally.
e.g. Mat. 24 -
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judæa flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 when they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. 31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. 32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
Many times in the Old Covenant histories, the LORD's presence was both seen & veiled by clouds as he led them through the wilderness. Also when he defended them or judged them. Exodus 19:9, Exodus 40, Isaiah 19,
Then in Rev. 1 the Olivet prophecy is affirmed -
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
......
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
......
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
I am a partial preterist, as I believe in the return of the LORD Jesus Christ for resurrection & judgment, to establish the NH&NE. 2 Peter 3. I think though that the scoffers were ridiculing Jesus promise to come to destroy Jerusalem & the temple - which were still standing for about 35 years. Peter affirms that prophecy & warns of his final coming also.
The flow blown version of it is heresy!
But they did not see Him literally because He literally did not come. So the full preterist narrative is not literal. End of story.
Last edited:
It denies the physical resurrection of all the saints, and has a spiritual resurrection that already happened. Every non heretical second coming view has the physical resurrection, and literal return of Jesus intact!
But seriously, my unlearned opinion would be to start on close with the microscope, and then slowly back away until I was using that telescope, hoping not to miss anything in between.
Jesus Saves!
Active Member
I heard an ol country preacher say one time that when reading the bible we should always look for Jesus, then the Church, and then to see where we are. I can find him from Genesis to Revelation. After all, it's all about JESUS.
Yes End of Story!:
Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
Ye men of Galilee - Israel.
"THIS same Jesus" Not TITUS.
Like Manner - Bodily
As ye have seen him go - Visibly.
"We don't have the liberty of adding our own thoughts to Scripture. It is vital that we take what the Word of God says, and get as close to the original meaning as we can."
That quote is from you, John. I like it. I thought I would start with a point of agreement.
Take your time. My point is that you were misusing the 2 Peter verse as a whacking stick against non-literal interpretation. Wrong on two counts.
1. The verse is speaking of inspiration from God opposed to a lack of it. The idea of literal vs. metaphorical is not in rhis passage.
2. Neither does the passage have to with the reading of Scripture. It has to do prophecy. More specifically, as you can see from the next verse (unhelpfully, a new chapter) it has to do with true prophets vs. false prophets.
When I said to forget Poythress (who has written much that I agree with) I meant that his insertion,had nothing to do with that Petrine verse you cited.
Hopefully this is clearer.
That quote is from you, John. I like it. I thought I would start with a point of agreement.
Take your time. My point is that you were misusing the 2 Peter verse as a whacking stick against non-literal interpretation. Wrong on two counts.
1. The verse is speaking of inspiration from God opposed to a lack of it. The idea of literal vs. metaphorical is not in rhis passage.
2. Neither does the passage have to with the reading of Scripture. It has to do prophecy. More specifically, as you can see from the next verse (unhelpfully, a new chapter) it has to do with true prophets vs. false prophets.
When I said to forget Poythress (who has written much that I agree with) I meant that his insertion,had nothing to do with that Petrine verse you cited.
Hopefully this is clearer.
Last edited:
To become a full futurist one must abandon the plain sense of many, many "soon", "at hand", "quickly", and "this generation" passages.
IME, the more familiar you are with The Book, the handier you are with the telescope. One of the reasons I prefer(ed) Nelson ASV , a Bible with sound pertinent references.
[add]
The reason I say 'prefer(ed)'; nowadays a searchable electronic Bible comprises a mighty telescope.
Last edited:
What does Titus have to do with this? Obviously, it is the same Jesus. The Hebrews verse says He is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Included in the yesterday, surely, is His preincarnate existence.
"Same manner", an adverbial phrase (Come on. This basic grammar) refers to How He left - invisibly. You are writing as if the angel said "same Form".
- Status